Allowed

M.Srinivasulu Reddy v. The Commissioner, Rural Development

Telangana HC4 Aug 2011WP/21854/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner challenged termination as a Field Assistant under the National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme without notice or enquiry. This court allowed the writ petition, set aside the termination order, and directed adherence to specific circulars and guidelines with strict time limits for future proceedings.

What did the court decide?

Impugned termination order set aside; direction to conduct enquiry following specified circulars within prescribed time limits.

M.Srinivasulu Reddy Vs The Commissioner… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2011)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY

¶2

Writ Petition No.21854 of 2011

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

The petitioner was appointed as a Field Assistant under the National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme for Rayachoti Mandal, Y.S.R.Kadapa District. However, his services were terminated through order, dated 08.08.2010. He challenges the same on several grounds, such as that he was not put on notice and that no enquiry was conducted.

¶5

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents.

¶6

The appointment of Field Assistants under the Scheme does not appear to be governed by any statutory rules. The appointment and other ancillary matters are resorted to almost on ad hoc basis. In W.P.No.14121 of 2009 and batch, this Court examined identical matters and indicated the procedure that must be followed for termination of services of such employees.

¶7

Following the same, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order is set aside. It is, however, directed that-

¶8

(1) The competent disciplinary authority shall follow strictly the guidelines laid down in Circular No.143/SRDS/HR Manual/2009, dated 27.1.2010 and the rules laid down 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;

¶9

(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;

¶10

(3) If action is based on a social audit, majority members of the Gram Panchayat and the delinquent Field Assistant/Technical Assistant must be invited to the Gram Sabha and, in their presence, Gram Sabha should be conducted;

¶11

(4) Any objections raised by the delinquent may be recorded by the Social Audit team and if action is based on MPDO’s 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;

¶12

(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 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;

¶13

(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;

¶14

(7) In all the 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 the pendency of the fresh enquiry; and

¶15

(8)

¶16

The exercise indicated above in respect of the petitioner shall be completed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶17

There shall be no order as to costs.

¶18

_______________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY,J Dt:04.08.2011. kdl

M.Srinivasulu Reddy v. The Commissioner, Rural Development

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.Srinivasulu Reddy v. The Commissioner, Rural Development

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

O.Ranga Lakshmi Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh, represented by its

S.Mahipal Reddy, S/o Malla Reddy, Vs The Regional Manager, Apsrtc

Kurapati Stalin Vs Rebba Yesobu

Pantina Surya Narayana Murthy Vs The Assistant General Manager

S.Balraj Vs The Regional Manager, Apsrtc Mahaboobnagar Region

Puli Nithin Raj Vs Hindustan Aeronautics Limited, rep. by its General Manager