APHC010075292018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] WEDNESDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA WRIT PETITION NO: 3334/2018 Between: 1. RAYUDU USHA SRI, W/O. D.BANGARAIAH, AGED 38 YEARS, OCC ASST. PROJECT MANAGER, SERP, VELUGU PROJECT, SEETHAMPETA, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY IT SECRETARY, RURAL DEPARTMENT, A.P. SECRETARIAT, AMARAVATHY 2. SOCIETY FOR ELIMINATION OF RURAL POVERTY, SERP, ANDHRA PRADESH, VIJAYAWADA,. REP. BY C. E . O. 3. THE PROJECT DIRECTOR, DRDA, WEST GODAVARI, ELURU 4. SOCIETY FOR ELIMINATION OF RURAL POVERTY SERP, SEETHAMPETA MANDAL SAMAKHYA, REP. BY SEETHAMPET, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. M SRI ATCHYUT Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. Sri M.HARI BABU, STANDING COUNSEL FOR SERP 2. GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ RURAL DEV (AP) The Court made the following: 2 ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India with the following prayer for: “.... a Writ of Mandamus declaring the Proceedings of the 2nd Respondent in 584/SERP/HR/W.G./2013 dated 23-11- 2017 as void ab-initio as it is violative of Principles of Natural Justice, arbitrary, illegal, consequently set aside the same.” 2. Heard Sri M.Sri Atchyut, learned counsel for the Petitioner and Sri M.Hari Babu, learned Standing Counsel for Society for Elimination of Rural Poverty (SERP). 3. Learned counsel for the Petitioner would submit that, without following the procedure, the Petitioner was reduced to the lower rank on the allegation of misappropriation of funds. 3. Learned Standing Counsel would submit that the impugned proceedings under which the Petitioner was imposed the punishment of reducing to lower rank itself shows that the individual admitted in her statement before the Enquiry Authority about receipt of funds and also usage of the same for her personal use. Learned Standing Counsel would further submit that, it is a clear case of misappropriation. Hence, prayed for dismissal of the petition. 4. Considering the submissions made and on a perusal of the material on record, it is not the case where the Department has not followed the procedure for initiating enquiry against the Petitioner. Charge memo has been issued, Enquiry Officer was appointed and before the Enquiry Officer, the individual had admitted that she had received the project funds and used them 3 for personal use. When it is a case of misappropriation, the Authorities instead of terminating the employee, reduced her to lower rank, which does not warrant any interference of this Court. The writ petition lacks merit and the same is liable to be dismissed. 5. In the result, the Writ Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed. ________________________________________ Dr.JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Date:02.07.2025 Dinesh 4 HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA W.P.No.3334 of 2018 Dt.02.07.2025 Dinesh