ORDER : The present writ petition is filed to impugn the proceedings dated 27.05.2020 issued by the 1st respondent wherein the 1st respondent had permanently terminated contract agreement with the petitioner and disqualified the petitioner for further employment under the 3rd respondent society as well as consequential order issued by the 3rd respondent by proceedings dated 19.08.2021 dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner is being arbitrary, illegal, discriminatory, mala fide, and is an unconstitutional violating Article 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India apart from violating principles of natural justice as well as contrary to the rules issued by the 3rd respondent society i.e. Society for Rural Development Services Disciplinary Rules, 2012. 2. The petitioner submits that he possessed Bachelor of Technology in Agriculture qualification from Acharya N.G. Ranga University, Rajendra Nagar Hyderabad in the year 2009 and he was appointed as a Project Officer on contract basis under the jurisdiction of the 1st respondent vide proceedings dated 09.08.2011 issued by the 4th respondent, Chief Executive Officer, Society for Rural Development Services, in pursuance of the selection made by the selection committee constituted by the 4th respondent after issuing notification for the said post. The petitioner submits that he was selected and appointed as Project Officer on contract basis by the 4th respondent and posted as Project Officer under the jurisdiction of the 1st respondent in August 2011 and submits that his appointing authority is the 4th respondent. He would further submit that while he was working as Project Officer PMKSY (IWMP Scheme), Water Development Centre, Nalgonda, the 1st respondent vide proceedings dated 19.03.2020 terminated the contract service as Project Officer and framed the charges against him with a direction to submit the explanation to show cause notice on the ground that certain adverse news were published in the Andhra Jyothi daily news paper dated 10.11.2019 under heading “DWAMAYA JALAM” regarding diversion of PMKSY funds to the account of private person and also based on allegations in a representation made by the State President of RTI Act who leveled allegations against the petitioner that he misappropriated the funds of PMKSY (IWMP Scheme), Watershed Development Centre Nalgonda. It is further submitted that prior to the issuing of the aforesaid proceedings dated 19.03.2020, the District Collector and Chairman DRDA Nalgonda i.e. respondent No.2 vide proceedings dated 04.12.2019 appointed one Smt. Sangeeta Lakshmi, District Horticulture and Sericulture Officer, Nalgonda as Enquiry Officer to conduct an enquiry with regard to the allegations published in the Andhra Jyothi newspaper dated 10.11.2019. 3. It is submitted that the said enquiry officer conducted the enquiry and submitted the report vide letter dated 15.02.2020 addressed to the 2nd respondent, wherein the enquiry officer recommended to initiate appropriate action by the DRDA/District Administration against the petitioner for due negligence resulting diversion of Watershed Development funds (WDF) i.e. an amount of rupees 10.72 lakhs into the S.B. account No.30075552021 of an unauthorised person existing in SBI Sagar Road branch, Miryalaguda instead to respective WDF authorized accounts, i.e. Andhra Pradesh Grammena Vikasa Bank. 4. It is submitted that the report submitted by the enquiry officer clearly discloses that the petitioner neglected his duties and because of such negligence only misappropriation took place, but the fact remains that there is no finding after conducting enquiry that the petitioner had misappropriated the said amount or the petitioner was remotely connected with regard to such misappropriation of funds, but unfortunately, illogically, the authorities have not taken any appropriate steps to find out the concerned person working in the office who had directly misappropriated the funds and subsequently how that amount was enjoyed or transferred by the person who got such amount because of diverting the funds by the computer operator who performed such duties having password of the account. The petitioner claims that he is innocent and that he is not at all connected with the misappropriation of funds and person who operated the computer in diverting the funds using the password which has been given by the authorities is alone responsible and in the event of inquiring with that person, the real facts would have come out. The petitioner claims that he is innocent and that he is not at all connected with the misappropriation of funds and person who operated the computer in diverting the funds using the password which has been given by the authorities is alone responsible and in the event of inquiring with that person, the real facts would have come out. The petitioner submits that the computer operator committed such a diversion taking advantage of his position to operate the bank account having password with him and what were the reasons and under what circumstances and at whose instance, the said operator committed such diversion of the funds, was not known and that the authorities made the petitioner as a scapegoat as if he had committed such misappropriation, which is absolutely not existing even as per report submitted by the Enquiring Officer. It is further submitted that the authorities ought to have verified the person who misappropriated that amount and submits that the computer operator who operated the bank account using the password issued by the higher authorities had diverted the funds to private account. He would further submit that though the petitioner had information and knowledge, the authorities have made him a scapegoat and the Additional Project Director vide letter dated 24.03.2020 filed a criminal complaint against the petitioner to the Station House Officer, I town Police station, Nalgonda requesting the SHO to file a criminal case against the petitioner as well as the private account holder i.e. Sir Azmeera Ram Babu as under section 409 of IPC (criminal breach of trust) and under section 420 of IPC (cheating) and consequently the SHO also registered the crime in FIR No.61 of 2020 dated 24.03.2020. 5. The petitioner submits that pursuance to the aforesaid charges a memo was issued by the 1st respondent dated 19.03.2020 to which he submitted his explanation on 08.04.2020 denying the aforesaid charges/allegations levelled against that he is not responsible for such diversion of funds and denied the allegations levelled in the charge memo dated 19.03.2020. 5. The petitioner submits that pursuance to the aforesaid charges a memo was issued by the 1st respondent dated 19.03.2020 to which he submitted his explanation on 08.04.2020 denying the aforesaid charges/allegations levelled against that he is not responsible for such diversion of funds and denied the allegations levelled in the charge memo dated 19.03.2020. The petitioner would further submit that on the same day the 1st respondent issued the charge memo and terminated the contract agreement by terminating the petitioner temporarily on contract basis and also conducted personal hearing asking certain questions which the petitioner answered and that the 1st respondent approved the note orders dated 13.05.2020 submitted by the office of the 1st respondent and based on such note orders, the 1st respondent issued the impugned order dated 27.05.2020 terminating the temporary contract service and disqualifying the petitioner for further employment under the Society. Therefore, the main contention of the petitioner is that the impugned proceedings clearly discloses that the 1st respondent was not the appointing authority and who acted as enquiry officer inasmuch as he conducted personal hearing on 08.04.2020 after receiving the explanation submitted by the petitioner on 08.04.2020 had issued the impugned order. Therefore, the impugned order issued by the 1st respondent is arbitrary, illegal void and also without jurisdiction and therefore the impugned order is liable to be set-aside on the ground of lack of jurisdiction and on the ground of violating principles of natural justice and that the 1st respondent has not appointed any enquiry officer to conduct an enquiry after issuing the charge memo dated 19.03.2020 and that it is a minimum procedure to be followed to conduct an enquiry for imposing any punishment much less major punishment and that in the present case the 1st respondent himself issued the charge memo as if he is the appointing authority and that the 1st respondent himself conducted the enquiry and received the explanation submitted by the petitioner dated 08.04.2020 and also issued the impugned order of termination of service of contract by the impugned proceedings. 6. It is further submitted that the 1st respondent himself is a complainant as well as prosecutor and also judge which is contrary to the principles of natural justice. 6. It is further submitted that the 1st respondent himself is a complainant as well as prosecutor and also judge which is contrary to the principles of natural justice. Later, in such circumstances, the petitioner made an appeal to the appellate authority that i.e. the 3rd respondent on 19.06.2020 raising various grounds both on facts and law but the 3rd respondent in arbitrary manner without application of mind without considering various grounds raised by the petitioner in the appeal rejected the appeal by impugned proceedings dated 19.08.2021 which was served on the petitioner through the 1st respondent by the memo dated 13.09.2021 and in such circumstances, the petitioner was compelled to approach the Hon’ble High Court invoking the jurisdiction of this Hon’ble High Court under the article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the aforesaid two impugned orders issued by the 1st and 3rd respondents. 7. On behalf of all the respondents, Counter has been filed by the District Rural Development Officer, Nalgonda Respondent No.1. It is submitted that an adverse news was published in the local daily newspaper dated 10.11.2019 pointing out transfer of IWMP/PMKSY WDF funds to SBI, Miryalguda branch on the name of private person vide Account No.30075552021 against the norms and further one K.Satyanarayana, State President, protection of RTI Act filed representation to the Commissioner, Rural Development on 29.11.2019 levelling allegation of misappropriation of PMKSY – WDC funds by Sri Ravi Kumar Project Officer, Petitioner herein requesting for detailed report on action against the concerned. The District Collector had appointed one Smt. Sangeeta Lakshmi, District Horticultural Officer, Nalgonda as enquiry officer to conduct detailed enquiry into the said allegations and to submit report. 8. The enquiry officer has conducted the enquiry on 30.12.2019 and submitted report on 15.02.2020 and confirmed the misuse of WDF amounts to a tune of rupees 10.72 lakhs and irregular transfer of amounts to the SBI, Miryalguda, (Sagar Road) account of Azmeera Ram Babu who is an unauthorised person and that the said Azmeera Ram Babu did not attend the enquiry intentionally though advance intimation was given to his address. The enquiry officer suggested action against the petitioner and also to trace out Sri Azmeera Ram Babu unauthorised person. Further, previously also there were allegations of misuse of WDF amounts by the petitioner in Kastala, Mallareddypally, Cherkupalli, Angadipeta, Thanedarpalli, project vide letter dated 12.04.2019. The enquiry officer suggested action against the petitioner and also to trace out Sri Azmeera Ram Babu unauthorised person. Further, previously also there were allegations of misuse of WDF amounts by the petitioner in Kastala, Mallareddypally, Cherkupalli, Angadipeta, Thanedarpalli, project vide letter dated 12.04.2019. The APD, Nakrekal was requested to enquiry into the allegations and to submit report. But in spite of advance notice, the petitioner failed to attend enquiry on 23.04.2019 stating some irrelevant reasons. Enquiry could not be conducted as per letter dated 26.04.2019 of APD Nakrekal. Thereafter again as per the press clipping and RTA petition and as per the instructions of the District Collector, the District Horticultural Officer, Nalgonda has conducted enquiry and confirmed misuse and the irregular transfer of rupees 10.72 lakhs of WDF amounts to the account of the unauthorised person namely Azmeera Ram Babu, as such, the enquiry officer suggested action against the petitioner and to trace out Sri Azmeera Ram Babu. On perusal of enquiry report of the District Horticultural Officer, Nalgonda, the District Collector has passed following orders dated 26.02.2020. “ISSUE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE CHARGE MEMO AND PLACE THE DEFAULTING PROJECT OFFICER, RAVIKUMAR, WCC DEVARAKONDA UNDER SUSPENSION IMMEDIATELY FOR FRAUD/DIVERTING GOVERNMENT MONEY AND FINANCIAL IRREGULARITIES AS PER FTE POLICY AND INITITATE FURTHER ACTION OF FILING CRIMINAL CASE UNDER MISAPPROPRIATION OF GOVERNMENT FUNDS AND PUTUP F.I.R. IMMEDIATELY AGAINST BOTH 1.A.RAMBABU 2.PROJECT OFFICER RAVI KUMAR. D.D.HORTICULTURE (ENQUIRY OFFICER) WITH ASSISTANCE OF APD (C.B) TO FILE F.I.R. AND PUTUP COPY FOR PERUSAL.” 9. It is submitted that the petitioner was placed under suspension on 19.03.2020 and charges were framed against him and a criminal case was also filed in FIR No.61/2020 dated 24.03.2020 in I Town police station, Nalgonda. The petitioner submitted explanation to the charges without explaining proper reasons for misuse of amounts in admitting the mistake of not verifying the account number of FTOs and made WDF payments as it is. The explanation offered by the Project Officer was incomplete and proved that the project officer has intentionally involved in fraud/diversion of money to SBI Miryalaguda branch in the name of unauthorised person. Personal hearing was conducted on 08.04.2020. It is further submitted that the petitioner failed to submit any documentary evidence in support of his explanation to the charges. The explanation offered by the Project Officer was incomplete and proved that the project officer has intentionally involved in fraud/diversion of money to SBI Miryalaguda branch in the name of unauthorised person. Personal hearing was conducted on 08.04.2020. It is further submitted that the petitioner failed to submit any documentary evidence in support of his explanation to the charges. Thereafter the project officer i.e. petitioner herein taking the entire responsibility had also deposited the misappropriated amount of rupees 10.72 WDF accounts admitting his mistake and liability and requested to reinstate him to duty. 10. Heard Sri P.V.Krishnaiah, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the Government Pleader for Services-II for the respondents and perused the material available on record. 11. For better appreciation of the case, it is necessary to extract the relevant rule position of Disciplinary Rules for FTEs of SRDS (2012). “5.22. Misconduct: Breach of any of the provisions of these conditions shall be deemed to constitute misconduct punishable under terms and conditions for control and appeal of SRDS FTEs. In addition to the above, the following acts are also treated as misconduct on the part of the FTEs of the SRDS. (i) Willful insubordination or disobedience of instructions whether alone or in combination with others or any lawful and reasonable order of a superior; (ii) Damage, theft, fraud or dishonesty in connection with the activity or property connected with the CRD and SRDS or any other Government office where from FTE is presently functioning. (iii) Habitual absence without leave, or absence without leave for more than seven consecutive days without sufficient reasons or overstaying the sanctioned leave without sufficient grounds or proper or satisfactory explanation; (iv) Engaging in trade during the employment period. (v) Unprovoked misbehavior, drunkenness, riotous, disorderly or indecent behaviour in the premises of the work place. (vi) Habitual neglect of work, or habitual negligence, disclosing any information in regard to the activities of the department to any unauthorized person which may be prejudicial to the interest of the department. (vii) Gambling within the premises of the society or in the work place. (viii) Conviction by any Court of Law for any criminal offence involving moral turpitude. Breach of any of the above acts will also result in initiation of disciplinary action against FTE under terms and condition for control and appeal of FTEs of SRDS. 6.2. (vii) Gambling within the premises of the society or in the work place. (viii) Conviction by any Court of Law for any criminal offence involving moral turpitude. Breach of any of the above acts will also result in initiation of disciplinary action against FTE under terms and condition for control and appeal of FTEs of SRDS. 6.2. Manner of conducting and conclusion of disciplinary cases As soon as may be and in no case later than 7 days from the date of detection of omissions/and commissions, a ‘Charge Memo’ detailing therein the a) grounds and evidence of such commissions/and omissions b) the date fixed for personal hearing shall be served on the delinquent FTE by the Disciplinary Authority. (ii) The delinquent FTE shall be given 7 days time to rebut the charges and give evidence in his defense by way of written submission. (iii) In the personal hearing, the delinquent FTE is provided chance to rebut the evidence and give explanation. (iv) In the event the FTE does not appear on the date given for personal hearing, the Disciplinary Authority shall conclude the disciplinary proceedings and pass finally a speaking order based on the evidence on record duly discussing the evidence in final orders. (v) In the event FTE attends personal hearing, the disciplinary authority shall pass finally a speaking order within 7 days from the date of such hearing. (vi) All disciplinary proceedings initiated for any irregularity shall be concluded within 30 days from the date of detection of such omissions/and commissions. (vii) Failure to conclude the disciplinary proceedings, in the manner prescribed in these rules or as per the time limits stated therein, shall be punishable under Section 25 of the Act. 6.3. Authorities competent to suspend the contract of or/and to impose penalties on FTEs The Project Director who is also ex-officio Joint Secretary of SRDS is the competent authority to suspend the contract of or/and to impose any penalty on any FTE working in DWMA. The Member Secretary or CEO of the Society for Rural Development Services is competent to suspend the contract of or/and to impose any penalty on any FTE.” 12. The Member Secretary or CEO of the Society for Rural Development Services is competent to suspend the contract of or/and to impose any penalty on any FTE.” 12. The main contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that as per the Disciplinary Rules for the FTEs of SRDS, 2012, the Project Director, who is also ex-officio Joint Secretary of SRDS, is the competent authority to suspend the contract and respondent No.1 is not having jurisdiction to issue the impugned order. Therefore, prayed to allow the writ petition. 13. Reiterating the contents made in the counter, the learned Government Pleader for Services-II has submitted that the enquiry report clearly reveals that the petitioner is liable for action for unauthorized transfer of WDF amounts to unauthorized accounts in S.B.I., Miryalaguda instead of A.P.G.V.B. It is further submitted that the petitioner has not filed any objections on the enquiry report of District Horticulture Officer, Nalgonda. It is further submitted that there is no irregularity in issuing the termination order by respondent No.1. It is also submitted that earlier there were allegations against the petitioner for misuse of WDF amounts and ordered enquiry against him, but the petitioner failed to cooperate in the enquiry conducted and scuttled the enquiry process on 23.04.2019. It is further submitted that the petitioner has remitted the misused amount of Rs.10.72 lakhs admitting his mistake and liability, therefore, there are no merits in the writ petition and prayed to dismiss the writ petition. 14. Having regard to the rival contentions, the point that arises for consideration is whether respondent No.1 is the competent authority to pass the impugned termination proceedings, dated 27.05.2020, which has been confirmed by the 3rd respondent, Member Secretary, Society for Rural Development Services. 15. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the 4th respondent is the only appointing authority and that the impugned order issued by the 1st respondent is without jurisdiction. 16. From a perusal of Disciplinary Rules for FTEs of SRDS (2012), 6.3, deals with the authorities competent to suspend the contract of or/and to impose penalties on FTEs, which reads as under: “The Project Director who is also ex-officio Joint Secretary of SRDS is the competent authority to suspend the contract of or/and to impose any penalty on any FTE working in DWMA. The Member Secretary or CEO of the Society for Rural Development Services is competent to suspend the contract of or/and to impose any penalty on any FTE.” 17. In terms of 6.3 of the Disciplinary Rules for FTEs of SRDS (2012), the Respondent No.3, SRDS is the competent authority to suspend the contract of or/and to impose any penalty on any FTE working in DWMA. But, in the instant case, the main grievance of the petitioner is that without having jurisdiction, the 1st respondent terminated the contract agreement and disqualified the petitioner for further employment under the society in any cadre. In this regard, the petitioner ought to have questioned and raised the jurisdiction issue at the first instance. However, he participated in the Enquiry proceedings but did not cooperate in the enquiry and failed to discharge his duties and scuttled the enquiry process. That apart, in the appeal made before the 3rd respondent vide appeal dated 19.06.2020, the petitioner has not raised any objections and nowhere raised the Jurisdictional issue in the appeal. On a perusal of the Proceedings of the Respondent No.1 dated 27.05.2020, the 1st respondent has elaborately discussed in his termination order of Contract agreement and held that though an opportunity was given to the petitioner but the petitioner failed to cooperate with the enquiry and due to his negligence resulted in diversion of funds and on the other hand he had admitted the mistake treating it as his first mistake and has credited the misappropriated amount. The 3rd respondent vide proceedings dated 19.08.2021 held that after hearing the versions of the appellant and Smt. N.Kavita, HR Manager representative of the DRDA, Nalgonda and also after thorough verification of available records, it is observed that the contentions made by the appellant in his appeal has been examined with reference to the available connected records and found that there are no new reasons/grounds other than those already examined by the enquiry officer and disciplinary authority and that the appellant i.e. petitioner herein has already repaid the entire misappropriated amount of Rs.10,72,694/- through DD No.504174, dated 06.04.2020 of ICICI Bank, Nalgonda which indicates his acceptance in misappropriation of PMKSY – WDC funds. Therefore, the decision taken by the disciplinary authority i.e. DRDO, DRDA Nalgonda by terminating the contract agreement and disqualification for further employment under the society in any cadre is sustained and accordingly the appeal of the petitioner was dismissed. 18. Coming to the aspect of violation of principles of natural justice, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Himachal Pradesh Road Transport Corporation and another Vs. Hukam Chand, (2009) 11 Supreme Court Cases 222 at paras 12 and 13 held as under: “12. Compliance with the principles of natural justice, either by holding an enquiry or by giving the employee an opportunity of hearing or showing cause, is necessary, where an employer proposes to punish an employee on a charge of misconduct which is denied, or when any term or condition of employment is proposed to be altered to the employee's disadvantage without his consent. 13. On the other hand, if there is an admission of misconduct, or if the employee pleads guilty in respect of the charge, or if the employee consents to the alteration of any terms and condition of service, or where the employee himself seeks the alteration in the conditions of service, there is no need for holding an enquiry or for giving an opportunity to the employee to be heard or show cause. Holding an employee guilty of a misconduct on admission, or altering the conditions of service with consent, without enquiry or opportunity to show cause, does not violate the principles of natural justice.” 19. In the case on hand, admittedly the petitioner had repaid the misappropriated amount of Rs.10,72,694/-, which clearly indicates an admission of misconduct. As per the notice issued by the enquiry officer to the petitioner, the petitioner attended but had not cooperated with the enquiry officer in discharging his duties and scuttled the enquiry process. It is an obligation on the part of the petitioner to cooperate with the enquiry officer to disprove the allegations leveled against him. Though the authorities have given sufficient opportunity to participate in enquiry, the petitioner failed to avail such opportunity. In the said case supra, the Hon’ble Supreme Court had categorically held that if there is an admission of misconduct, there is no need for holding an enquiry or for giving an opportunity to the employee to be heard or show cause. Though the authorities have given sufficient opportunity to participate in enquiry, the petitioner failed to avail such opportunity. In the said case supra, the Hon’ble Supreme Court had categorically held that if there is an admission of misconduct, there is no need for holding an enquiry or for giving an opportunity to the employee to be heard or show cause. Holding an employee guilty of a misconduct on admission, without enquiry or opportunity to show cause, does not violate the principles of natural justice. 20. In view of the same, since the petitioner has already preferred an appeal before the Respondent No.3, who has considered in detail the enquiry conducted by the respondent No.1 and after being satisfied with the decision taken by the disciplinary authority i.e. the respondent No.1 by terminating the contract agreement and disqualification for further employment under the Society in any cadre as such, the respondent No.3 as per Rule 6.3 of the Disciplinary Rules for FTEs of SRDS (2012) is otherwise competent to pass the order of termination dated 19.08.2021. Moreover, the petitioner on his own volition had already repaid the amount of Rs.10,72,694/- by way of D.D. No.504174 dated 06.04.2020, admitting his mistake as such, nothing survives for further consideration. That apart, the criminal case bearing Cr.No.61 of 2020 registered under Section 409, 420 IPC as on the date of filing is pending and the status of the criminal case is not informed. Hence, this Court do not find any merit in this writ petition to interfere with the impugned proceedings dated 27.05.2020 and 19.08.2021 passed by the respondents No.1 and 3 respectively and therefore, this writ petition is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand cancelled.