Disposed

S.Venkat Reddy v. The Mandal Parishad Development Officer

Telangana HC5 Oct 2010WP/16642/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court resolved a writ petition concerning disciplinary action against a Field Assistant by relying on a prior batch order (W.P No.14121 of 2009) which prescribed strict guidelines for inquiries, social audits, and recovery procedures.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was disposed of in terms of the order dated 07.07.2010 in W.P No.14121 of 2009. No order as to costs.

S.Venkat Reddy Vs The Mandal Parishad Development Officer — Corruption | Telangana HC (2010)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD

¶2

TUESDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND NINE

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HON'BLE Ms. JUSTICE G.ROHINI

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO. 16642 OF 2010

¶6

Between:

¶7

S.Venkat Reddy …PETITIONER

¶8

AND

¶9

The Mandal Parishad Development Officer & another.

¶10

… RESPONDNETS

¶11

The Court made the following :

¶12

THE HON'BLE Ms. JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION NO.16642 OF 2010

¶13

O R D E R:

¶14

It is represented by the learned counsel for both the parties that the issue involved in this writ petition is squarely covered by the order of this Court in W.P.No.14121 of 2009 and batch, dated 07.07.2010, which was disposed of laying down the following directions for the purpose of conducting the disciplinary proceedings against the Field Assistants / Technical Assistants.

¶15

“ 1) The competent disciplinary authority shall follow strictly the guidelines laid down in Circular No.143/SRDS/HR Manual/2009 dated 27.01.2010 and the Rules laid down

¶16

vide G.O.Ms.No.98 Panchayat Raj and Rural Development (RD.II) Department dated 09.03.2010, for the purpose of conducting enquiry, social audit etc.

¶17

2) If a report of the Gram Panchayat is received by the disciplinary authority, a copy of the same shall be furnished to the delinquent Field Assistant / Technical Assistant and if any witnesses are mentioned therein, they shall be examined in the presence of such Field Assistant / Technical Assistant and they shall be permitted to Cross-examine such witnesses. 3) If action is based is on a social audit, majority members of the Gram Panchayat and the delinquent Field Asisstant / Technical Assistant must be invited to the Gram Sabha and, in their presence, Gram Sabha should be conducted.

¶18

4) Any objections raised by the delinquent may be recorded by the Social Audit team and, if action is based on MPDOs’ own inspection / verification and the inspection by any other functionaries like Assistant P.D. Etc., the Inspection Report showing allegations against the delinquent shall be furnished to the delinquent Field Assistant / Technical Assistant and the delinquent should be allowed to file his / her objections, if any, and after filing the objections, the authorities are at liberty to take appropriate decision, as per law, and pass further orders, after giving show-cause notice and personal hearing in the matter. 5) The entire procedure must be completed within a period of 30 days as contemplated under the guidelines from the date of issuing initial show-cause notice, enumerating the charges. In case of suspension of an

¶19

employee, he / she is entitled for subsistence allowance only for thirty days and if there is any delay occurred in conducting the enquiry, it may be extended for another one month, but, in any case, the enquiry cannot be extended beyond the period of two months.

¶20

6) In any case if it is found that the delinquent has committed misappropriation, it is always open for the authorities, after passing the final orders, to recover the same, as per law.

¶21

7) In all cases where recovery is contemplated, a fresh enquiry shall be conducted and completed, as per the directions of this Court, as above, within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. If any separate recovery proceedings are issued in pursuance of the impugned proceedings herein, they shall stand stayed during pendency of the fresh enquiry.

¶22

It is unfortunate that allegations of high corruption like Rs.20.00 lakhs and Rs.30.00 lakhs are made against the Field Assistants / Technical Assistants, who are working under the MPDOs and other higher officers and supposed to only assist such Officers and not to deal with any monetary matters directly. It appears, there is no proper supervision by the higher officials and such serious matters are entrusted to the persons who are appointed on meager salary and on contract basis and they are allowed to indulge in misappropriation of funds meant for the rural poor under the National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme, in large-scale. The concerned District Collectors are directed to look into this matter personally and instruct the

¶23

Officers concerned not to allow the Field Assistants / Technical Assistants etc., to deal with the money distribution etc., directly, if there is any misappropriation of money, the Officers concerned must be made responsible. All the writ petitions are allowed and the matters are remanded accordingly. The stay/suspension orders, if any, granted earlier, shall stand vacated in view of the disposal of the writ petitions, as above”.

¶24

Since the petitioner herein is also similarly situated, this writ petition is disposed of in terms of the order, dated 07.07.2010 in W.P.No.14121 of 2009 and batch. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶25

_____________

¶26

G.ROHINI, J

¶27

OCTOBER 05, 2010 YVL

S.Venkat Reddy v. The Mandal Parishad Development Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.Venkat Reddy v. The Mandal Parishad Development Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Rani Rao alasaraswathi Devi Vs The Joint Collector Cum Settlement officer

Mohd. Abdul Gaffar Vs A.P State Wakf Board , Rep. by its Chief Executive

Chennuru Venkata Subba Reddy Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh, represented by its

Manne Pullamma Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

Surasani Lakshmi Narasa Reddy, Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

Mohd. Kazam Ali Khan, Vs The Comissioner and Special Officer