Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 813 (AP)

G. Rajaiah v. The Chief Executive Officer

2011-09-27

L.NARASIMHA REDDY

body2011
Judgment : The petitioner was appointed as Additional Programme Officer for Gambhiraopet Mandal, Karimnagar District for implementation of National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme (for short ‘the Scheme’). He was issued a show cause notice dated 19.07.2010 alleging that in the social audit that was conducted between 07.05.2010 and 18.05.2010, certain financial irregularities referable to the petitioner, particularly in the context of deepening of old irrigation wells were pointed out. It was alleged that the petitioner arranged for payment of amounts without recording the pre-measurement, in violation of the guidelines. The petitioner submitted his explanation on 10.08.2010. He stated that the orders pertaining to deepening of old wells were passed by the MPDO and that the payments were also made by the same Officer, through cheques. He denied his involvement in the said work in any manner. 2. The Project Director, District Water Management Agency, Karimnagar, the third respondent herein passed an order dated 10.08.2010 terminating the services of the petitioner by observing that the explanation submitted by him was not satisfactory. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner filed an appeal before the District Collector, the second respondent herein. Since no orders were passed therein, he approached this Court by filing W.P.No.25163 of 2010. The writ petition was disposed of directing the second respondent to pass orders in the appeal preferred by the petitioner. However, the appeal was rejected by the first respondent through order dated 27.01.2011 by making reference to ten instances of lapses and irregularities on the part of the petitioner. The said order is challenged in this writ petition. 3. Counter affidavit is filed by the third respondent stating that the petitioner was found to have resorted to certain irregularities in the context of deepening of old wells. 4. Sri E. Madan Mohan Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the only allegation against him in the show cause notice was that he arranged for payment of amount for deepening of old irrigation wells without recording pre-measurement and though the allegation was denied, no enquiry was conducted and the order of termination was passed. He further submits that the appellate authority supplemented new facts without even verifying the truth or otherwise of the allegation made against the petitioner in the show cause notice. 5. He further submits that the appellate authority supplemented new facts without even verifying the truth or otherwise of the allegation made against the petitioner in the show cause notice. 5. Learned Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj and Rural Development on the other hand submits that the petitioner was given opportunity before his services were terminated and that the first respondent furnished valid reasons for dismissing the appeal. 6. Absence of a definite procedure to deal with the disciplinary matters against the employees associated to the NREGS and disinclination on the part of the concerned authorities to improve the situation is adding to the inefficiency or corruption in the implementation of the Scheme, on which mind-boggling amounts are spent. 7. The third respondent happens to be the head of the Scheme for the entire district. He issued a show cause notice to the petitioner alleging that he did not record measurements of the old wells before they were deepened. This was on the basis of the observation made in the course of social audit. The petitioner submitted his explanation flatly denying his involvement in the deepening of wells. He stated that not only the orders for those works were passed by the MPDO but also the payments were made by the same authority through cheques. In case, the explanation submitted by the petitioner was not satisfactory, the third respondent ought to have appointed an Enquiry Officer. Without taking any such steps, he has straightaway passed an order terminating the services of the petitioner. Since there existed a facility of appeal, the petitioner availed the same. 8. The first respondent ought to have confined her consideration to the text of the order passed by the third respondent and the truth or otherwise of the allegation made against the petitioner. She felt it free to press into service new grounds against the petitioner and as many as ten instances, either of corruption or other acts of misconduct were taken note of. One can understand lack of proper knowledge of Service Law on the part of the third respondent. However, the first respondent who happens to be an IAS Officer, ought to have been careful in dealing with the matter of this nature. One can understand lack of proper knowledge of Service Law on the part of the third respondent. However, the first respondent who happens to be an IAS Officer, ought to have been careful in dealing with the matter of this nature. When the basic complaint of the petitioner is that no enquiry was conducted in the matter, the order ought to have been set aside straightaway, instead of sustaining it, by adding new grounds. The whole exercise is untenable under law. 9. Therefore, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order is set aside. The third respondent is directed to take the petitioner forthwith into service. The petitioner is entitled to be paid the back wages. It shall however, be open to the third respondent to take necessary steps against the petitioner, in accordance with law, if he so intends, but after reinstating the petitioner. There shall be no order as to costs.