APHC010736002012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3457] MONDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION NO: 10033/2012 Between: G.mallikarjuna Rao, ...PETITIONER AND The District Collector-cum-district Programme and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. TENEPALLI NIRANJAN Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. SPL C FOR NREGS(M S R CHANDRA MURTHY) 2. GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ & RURAL DEV The Court made the following Order: The petitioner is challenging the proceedings dated 12.12.2011, whereby the 1st respondent confirmed the orders passed by the 2nd respondent. The 2nd respondent, vide proceedings dated 25.07.2011, passed the orders terminating the petitioner's services on the allegation that the petitioner was responsible for misappropriation of Rs.1,57,197- while discharging the role of a Field Assistant at Narsarajupalem Grampanchayat. 2 2. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the 2nd respondent passed an order dated 25.07.2011 on the strength of a show cause notice and basing on the explanation submitted by the petitioner. It is also submitted that the 2nd respondent has passed the said orders dated 25.07.2011 without conducting any enquiry. Against the said orders, the petitioner filed an appeal before the 1st respondent, which was rejected vide proceedings dated 12.12.2011. 3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the 2nd respondent ought to have conducted a detailed enquiry before issuing the major punishment of removal from service. Any order passed by the respondents without conducting any enquiry would have to be set aside by this Court, as the respondents have not followed the principles of natural justice while issuing the proceedings which are impugned in the present writ petition. 4. The respondents, in their counter, submit that the proceedings dated 25.07.2011 were issued after considering the explanation of the petitioner. It is submitted that the respondents conducted Social Audit on 21.07.2010 to 31.07.2010. It is also submitted in the counter that the respondents have passed the impugned proceedings after calling for an explanation from the petitioner. 5. The impugned proceedings deserve to be set aside, as the respondents have not conducted any enquiry before passing the impugned proceedings. The proceedings dated 25.07.2011, whereby the 2nd respondent has passed 3 the liability of Rs.1,57,197/- to the petitioner for the alleged misappropriation of funds. The said proceedings do not indicate that the respondents have arrived at the alleged misappropriation basing on a detailed enquiry. The 1st respondent has confirmed the proceedings dated 25.07.2011 and rejected the appeal preferred by the petitioner. 6. Both the impugned proceedings deserve to be set aside as the respondents have not followed the due procedure laid down under law for imposing the major punishment of termination from service. The respondents ought to have conducted a detailed enquiry before arriving at any decision against the petitioner. With these observations, both the impugned proceedings dated 25.07.2011 and 12.12.2011 are hereby set aside. 7. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is allowed. No costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. ____________________ JUSTICE HARINATH.N 27.01.2025 PNS