ORDER:

Heard the counsel for the petitioner and the standing counsel for the respondent Nos. 4 and 5.

2. This writ petition is filed questioning the termination order vide Proceedings in RC.No.7046/2021/P9, dated 13.12.2021 issued by the respondent No.3 without giving any opportunity of hearing for the petitioner even to participate in the enquiry proceedings before the authorities.

3. The counsel for the petitioner submits that in view of the G.O.Ms.No.104 dated 22.06.2019 of the Government of Andhra Pradesh, the District Collectors are directed to recruit Village/Ward Volunteers. Subsequently, a notification was released for the appointment of Village/Ward Volunteers. In which, the petitioner got appointment order as Village Volunteer by the respondent No.4 after conducting interview. Since then, the petitioner is performing duties to the satisfaction of his superiors. But on the basis of the letter referred in the impugned proceedings, the respondent No.3 passed termination order against the petitioner on mere allegations without conferring any opportunity for the petitioner to appear himself before any other appropriate authority.

4. The counsel for the petitioner further submits that in spite of offering detailed explanation by the petitioner, the impugned proceedings, dated 13.12.2021 were issued against the petitioner basing up on a complaint of the persons belonging to the rival group dated 28.10.2021 without resorting to conduct of any enquiry.

5. On the other hand, the learned standing counsel filed counter on behalf of respondent Nos.4 & 5 submitting that as per the G.O.Ms. 104 (Panchayat Raj & Rural Development (MDL-I) Department, dated 22.06.2019, the Mandal Parishad Development Officer i.e,. the respondent No.4 himself is the appointing authority and the respondent No.3 is the Chairman of the District Selection Committee and as such, the impugned order can be passed by the said authority.

6. However, even in reply, the counsel for the petitioner refers to the G.O.Ms.No.165, Panchayat Raj & Rural Development (MDL-I) Department, dated 25.10.2019 wherein, it is mentioned that the letter of engaging the services of the selected village volunteers will be issued by the Chairman of the Selection Committee i,e. Mandal Parishad Development Officer. So, relying upon the above said G.Os, the counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent No.4 is the appropriate authority to take even a disciplinary action by following the due process.

7. The counsel for the petitioner further refers to the orders of this Court in W.P.No.11306 of 2021 dated 28.07.2022 wherein, the matter was remanded to the authorities to consider afresh by issuing the speaking order.

8. In the light of the above said submissions, it is to be seen that the impugned orders in this writ petition does not contain any reasons for passing the removal orders against the petitioner and the power exercised by the respondent No.3 does not appear to be justifiable as Mandal Parishad Development Officer is the appropriate authority to take any disciplinary action.

9. It is evident that no enquiry was forthcoming acceding to the passing of the impugned order. In view of the same, the impugned order dated 13.12.2021 of the respondent No.3 is set aside with a liberty to the respondent No.4 to consider afresh for conducting any disciplinary action with regard to the allegations levelled against the petitioner by following the due process of law. The respondent No.4 can take appropriate decision afresh giving an opportunity to the petitioner at an appropriate stage.

10. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of.

As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, pending, if any, shall also stand closed.

______________________________ JUSTICE B. KRISHNA MOHAN March, 14, 2022 P K R THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. KRISHNA MOHAN WRIT PETITION NO. 254 OF 2022 March 14, 2022 P K R