APHC010056922013 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3457] MONDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION NO: 12718/2013 Between: 1. G.V.V.S.NARAYANA, S/O MACHARA RAO,, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, OCC:FIEID ASSISTANT (UNDER TERMINATION) NREGS, PEDDA BRAHMADEVAM GRAM PANCHAYAT, SAMALKOT MANDAL, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT, R/O H.NO. 9-221, RAILWAY STATION ROAD, PEDDA BRAHMADEVAM VILLAGE, SAMALKOT MANDAL, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP.BY ITS COMMISSIONER, RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, HYDERABAD. 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR/, APPELLATE AUTHORITY UNDER NREGS, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT AT KAKINADA. 3. THE PROJECT DIRECTOR, DISTRICT WATER MANAGEMENT AGENCY, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT AT KAKINADA. 4. THE MANDAL PARISHAD DEVELOPMENT OFFICER/, PROGRAMME OFFICER UNDER NREGS, SAMALKOT MANDAL, SAMALKOT, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): 2 Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. KRISHNA KISHORE KOVVURI 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: 3 ORDER:- No representation for the petitioner. 2. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent submits that the petitioner was initially placed under suspension pending enquiry and thereafter, conducting a detailed enquiry, the services of the petitioner were terminated. 3. It is stated in the counter affidavit that the petitioner has an effective and alternative remedy of filing an appeal before the District Collector within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of the order. It is further stated that the petitioner preferred an appeal, which was pending consideration and aggrieved by the non-disposal of the appeal, the petitioner filed W.P.No.3631 of 2012. This Court disposed of the said writ petition vide order dated 13.02.2012, directing the 3rd respondent therein to dispose of the appeal filed by the petitioner within a period of six weeks. It is also submitted that the petitioner filed C.C.No.1452 of 2012, aggrieved by the pendency of the appeal despite the orders of this Court. The 2nd respondent dismissed the appeal on 31.10.2012. Aggrieved by the said dismissal, the present writ petition is filed. 4. Considering the submissions, the petitioner was engaged for despite to work and was specified period of time as a Field Assistant and also considering that the work entrusted to the petitioner was not completed and as such the respondent authorities had entrusted the same to other Field Assistants and got the same executed. The grievance of the petitioner 4 seeking reinstatement cannot be considered by this Court. The petitioner was engaged as Field Assistant in the year 2007 and after the termination of the service of the petitioner, he was not in service as a Field Assistant. The enquiry was conducted by giving ample opportunity to the petitioner and the petitioner also participated in the enquiry proceedings. As such, it is not the case of the petitioner that the principles of the natural justice were not followed by the officers conducting the enquiry by this Court to exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction for setting aside the well-considered enquiry report. No valid grounds are raised in the writ petition for this Court to interfere and unsettle the findings of the Enquiry Officer. On these considerations, this Court is not inclined to entertain the writ petition. 5. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. ____________________ JUSTICE HARINATH.N Date.19.01.2026 SR