Disposed

R.Ramulu v. The Mandal Parishad Development officer, M.P.Telkapally

Telangana HC6 Apr 2010WP/3469/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged termination under NREGS alleging no inquiry was conducted. Court noted an internal appeal existed to the District Collector. As petitioner bypassed this remedy, court dismissed interference but permitted appeal before the authority.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed but petitioner permitted to file appeal to District Collector within four weeks with interim protection of employment.

R.Ramulu Vs The Mandal Parishad Development… — Service and Employment | Telangana HC (2010)

¶1

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY

¶2

Writ Petition No.3469 of 2010

¶3

Date: April 6, 2010

¶4

Between:

¶5

R. Ramulu, S/o. Balaswamy, aged about 31 years, Occ: Field Assistant, Laknaram village, Telkapally Mandal, Mahabubnagar District

¶6

… Petitioner

¶7

And

¶8

The Mandal Parishad Development Officer, M.P., Telkapally, Mahabubnagar District, and two others

¶9

… Respondents

¶10

Order:

¶11

The petitioner, a Field Assistant appointed under National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme (NREGS) programme, has questioned proceedings No.M1/EGS/2010, dated 18-01-2010. The petitioner claims to have been appointed as Field Assistant

¶12

under the aforesaid scheme, on contract basis, vide proceedings dated 20-09-2007 and his services are being extended from time to time. While so, impugned proceedings are issued terminating his services on the ground that he has misappropriated certain amount, which is allotted for implementation of the said scheme.

¶13

The impugned proceedings are questioned on the ground that no enquiry is conducted before issuing the same.

¶14

A detailed counter affidavit is filed on behalf of the respondents, denying the allegations made by the petitioner. In the counter affidavit, it is stated that the petitioner was appointed as Field Assistant on contract basis under the National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme in the year 2007. It is stated that social audit conducted on the works in the said scheme revealed that the petitioner misappropriated an amount of Rs.2,83,920/-, by incorporating the names of wage-seekers. It is further stated that in view of the said allegation, show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 11-082009 and in spite of the same, he has not responded; in that view of the matter, in view of the instructions of the Project Director, DWMA, Mahabubnagar vide Lr.No.D5/949, dated 03-01-2010, his services are terminated. The counter affidavit further states in view of the guidelines issued under the scheme in question, an appeal is provided against the order of removal to the District Collector concerned.

¶15

The petitioner, who was appointed as Field Assistant under the Scheme in question, has been terminated from services on an allegation that he has misappropriated certain amount. While it is the case of the petitioner that the impugned proceedings are issued without conducting any enquiry, the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents states that the petitioner was given a show-cause notice, but he failed to submit any explanation. Further, though the

¶16

Scheme itself provides an appeal to the District Collector against the impugned proceedings, the petitioner, without availing the remedy of appeal, approached this court. When an appeal is provided in the Scheme itself, to the District Collector, there is no reason for the petitioner to bypass the remedy of appeal available to him and approach this court.

¶17

In the circumstances, I am not inclined to interfere with the impugned proceedings. But, however, as the petitioner has not exhausted the remedy of appeal, I dispose of the writ petition permitting the petitioner to file an appeal, against the impugned proceedings, before the competent authority within a period of four weeks from today. In such an event, I am sure that the appellate authority will entertain the same without reference to limitation and pass appropriate orders. As much as it is stated that the petitioner is taken into servie pursuant to the interim order, he shall be continued as such for a period of four weeks. No order as to costs.

¶18

_____________________ (R. SUBHASH REDDY, J)

¶19

April 6, 2010 MRR

R.Ramulu v. The Mandal Parishad Development officer, M.P.Telkapally

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R.Ramulu v. The Mandal Parishad Development officer, M.P.Telkapally

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Pilla Apparao Vs Sec.Financeandcommerce INDIAAND3 Others

D. Maheswari, Vs The Project Director

K.Srinivasa Reddy Vs The Director General ,Border Security Force

M.Upender REddy Vs Andhra Pradesh Grameena Vikas Bank, rep.by its

A.Manjula Devi Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh, represented by

M.Krishnamurthy Vs Mandal Parishad Development Officer