Allowed

M. Somasekher Reddy, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC11 Dec 2024WP/43539/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A Field Assistant under the MGNREG Scheme terminated after a social audit found misappropriation of public funds challenged his termination by writ petition. The respondents later reappointed him as Field Assistant in 2021. The court set aside the impugned termination proceedings and allowed the writ petition.

What did the court decide?

Impugned Proceedings No.10/DVC/Social Audit/2017 dated 16.10.2017 set aside; no order as to costs; miscellaneous petitions closed.

M. Somasekher Reddy, Vs The State of Andhra… — Service and Employment | Andhra Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

APHC010952592017

¶2

[3333]

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

¶4

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶5

THURSDAY ,THE TWELFTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶6

PRESENT

¶7

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA

¶8

WRIT PETITION NO: 43539/2017

Between:

M. Somasekher Reddy,

...PETITIONER

AND

The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others

¶14

...RESPONDENT(S)

¶15

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶16

1.M SOMASEKHAR REDDY

¶17

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶18

1.SPL C FOR NREGS(M S R CHANDRA MURTHY)

¶19

2.GP FOR GENERAL ADMINISTRATION (AP)

¶20

3.B V APARNA LAKSHMI

¶21

The Court made the following:

¶22

ORDER :

¶23

The present Writ Petition came to be filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief:-

¶24

“…to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of a writ of mandamus declaring the impugned proceedings Rc.No.10/DVC/Social Audit/2017 dated 16-10-2017 issued by the Project Director cum Joint Secretary, District Water Management Agency, Kurnool District of the Society for Rural Development Services, the 2^nd respondent herein is arbitrary, illegal, capricious, high handed, motivated, biased, violative of Articles 14 and 21 and the guarantee under Article 300-A of the Constitution of India apart from being in violation of the principles of natural justice and fair play and consequently direct the respondents to allot work to the petitioner as Field Assistant in the 2^nd respondent organization and continue to do so and pass …”

¶25

The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed as a Field Assistant on 14.01.2007 with Job Card No.131770414019010017 by the Society for Rural Development Services (SRDS)/respondent No.2 and was given the post of Supervisor of 150 groups for carrying the works of Muguthi Gram Panchayat under the MGNREG Scheme. While the matter being so, the respondent No.3 initiated disciplinary action against the petitioner and placed the petitioner under suspension vide Proceedings No.10/DVC/SA/2017, dated 08.02.2017, on the ground that there is deficiency of service leading to misappropriation of public funds in the petitioner’s Gram Panchayat, which were issued basing on the Note orders issued by the District Collector, Kurnool dated 07.02.2017 and as well as the social audit reports dated 09.01.2017 and 10.01.2017. In response to the said suspension proceedings dated 08.02.2017, the petitioner had submitted an explanation on 06.04.2014 to the respondent No.3 by denying the allegations leveled against him. But, without considering the same, the respondent No.2 issued final orders regarding the disciplinary action against the petitioner vide Proceedings No.10/DVC/Social Audit/2017, dated 16.10.2017 and terminated the petitioner from services by ordering the recovery of Rs.29,174/- from the petitioner

¶26

within a period of 15 days from the date of the receipt of the proceedings dated 16.10.2017. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed the present writ petition.

¶27

Respondent No.3 had filed a detailed counter affidavit by duly admitting the facts stated by the petitioner and further stated that the appointment of the petitioner is purely on contractual basis for a period of one year and the petitioner was appointed as Field Assistant at Muguthi Gram Panchayat, Nandavaram Mandal, Kurnool District. While so, in the 10th round of the inspection conducted by the Social Audit Team, the works that are being executed in the Muguthi Gram Panchayat were inspected from 25.12.2017 to 08.01.2017, wherein the social audit team had found irregularities committed by the petitioner. In connection to which, the social audit team has conducted a Grama Sabha and Mandal level public hearing in Muguthi Gram Panchayat on 09.01.2017 and 10.01.2017 and the petitioner along with EGS Staff, wage seekers, villagers, people representatives, media have attended the hearing and when the Presiding Officer questioned regarding the alleged irregularities, the petitioner failed to submit a reply. As such, basing on the social audit team report dated 10.01.2017, the respondent No.3 issued the suspension proceedings dated 08.02.2017. Thereafter, the respondent No.3 had also issued a show cause notice dated 27.02.2017, duly providing an opportunity for attending the personal hearing. Pursuant to which, the petitioner attended the personal hearing on 06.04.2017 and submitted his explanation. On considering the same and upon due verification, the respondent No.2 found that the public funds to a tune of Rs.29,174/- were misappropriated by the petitioner and as such, issued the final orders vide Proceedings No.10/DVC/Social Audit/2017, dated 16.10.2017, by terminating the petitioner from service with an order for recovery of the misappropriated funds from the petitioner. It is further stated that the respondents after following due process of law laid down under G.O.Ms.No.98 dated 09.03.2010 and Circular No.666/EGS(P)/2012, dated 08.01.2013, have issued the termination

¶28

proceedings dated 16.10.2017 to the petitioner and requested this Court to dismiss the writ petition.

¶29

Heard Sri M.Somasekhar Reddy, party-in-person, petitioner in the writ petition, learned Government Pleader for General Administration appearing for the respondent Nos.1 & 2, Sri M.S.R.Chandra Murthy, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent No.3 and Ms. B.V.Aparna Lakshmi, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.4 and perused the material available on record.

¶30

Today when the matter came up for hearing, Sri M.S.R.Chandra Murthy, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent No.3 has produced a copy of instructions dated 03.12.2024, issued by the District Vigilance Officer, DWMA, Kurnool, wherein it is stated that the respondent No.4/MPDO/PO, Nandavaram Mandal, Kurnool District, had submitted proposals for appointing the petitioner as Field Assistant in Mugathi Village, Nandavaram Mandal vide Lr.No.35/MGNREGS/Nandavaram/2020-2021, dated 11.01.2021 and the said proposals were accepted by the Project Director, DWMA, Kurnool and accordingly the petitioner was appointed as the Field Assistant for the said village on 26.02.2021, presently the petitioner is working as Field Assistant in Mugathi Village, Nandavaram Mandal.

¶31

On a perusal of the instructions submitted by the learned Standing Counsel, it can be seen that basing on the proposals submitted by the MPDO/PO, Nandavaram Mandal, Kurnool District, for appointing the petitioner as Field Assistant, the Project Director, DWMA, Kurnool/respondent No.3 has accepted the said proposals and appointed the petitioner as Field Assistant in Mugathi Village, Nandavaram Mandal and at present the petitioner is working as Field Assistant. In view of the same, this Court feels it appropriate to setaside the impugned Proceedings No.10/DVC/Social Audit/2017, dated 16.10.2017, issued by the respondent No.2.

¶32

Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed by setting aside the Impugned Proceedings No.10/DVC/Social Audit/2017, dated 16.10.2017, issued by the respondent No.2. There shall be no order as to costs..

¶33

Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, in this Writ Petition shall stand

¶34

closed.

¶35

___________________ JUSTICE V.SUJATHA

Date: 12.12.2024

SRT

234

THE HONOURABLE SMT.JUSTICE V.SUJATHA

¶40

W.P.No.43539 of 2017

¶41

Date: 12.12.2024

¶42

SRT

M. Somasekher Reddy, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M. Somasekher Reddy, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

K.S.V.V.N.T. Lakshmi, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

L. Venugopal, S/o. Late L. Dayakar Vs The Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation

B Chandra Mohan Vs State of Ap,Prl.Scy,P.Raj,Guntur Dist,& 4

M/S.Jai Hanuman Traders Now M/S Contryman Farm Equipment and Implements Vs Sri Gopal Krishna Dwivedi,Ias

M/S Neelima Enterprises Vs Sri Gopal Krishna Dwivedi IAS

B Aravind Prasad Vs the State of Ap