THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE PULLA KARTHIK

ORDER:

This Writ Petition (TR) is filed challenging the impugned termination proceedings No.1560/2012/A1-Pts., dated 15.10.2013 issued by respondent No.2, and consequently, to direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner into service with all consequential benefits.

2. Heard Sri M. Bharath Shah, learned counsel, representing Sri D. Linga Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, and learned Government Pleader for Services-II, appearing on behalf of the respondents.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was appointed as a Panchayat Secretary on contract basis, w.e.f., 01.08.2003. However, while he was continuously working as such, anticipating regularization of his services on par with the individuals appointed along with him, on 15.10.2013, respondent No.2 has communicated the impugned proceedings, terminating the services of the petitioner, basing on a complaint lodged against the petitioner before the Andhra Pradesh Lokayuktha, Hyderabad. It is also stated in the impugned proceedings that his performance was unsatisfactory and that he had violated the terms and conditions of agreement, and also despite the issuance of a show-cause notice, no explanation was submitted by him. It is submitted that there was no single incident or allegation against the petitioner during his tenure as Panchayat Secretary, and thus, it is not known to the petitioner on which basis, respondent No.2 arrived at such a conclusion, resulting in termination of his services.

4. Learned counsel has drawn the attention of this Court towards the alleged irregularities that purportedly formed the basis for termination of the petitioner’s services, and the same are extracted hereunder: 1. “As seen from the audit reports 2007-08 paid Rs.13,000/-

towards staff salaries without obtaining prior permission from competent authorities for the year 2007-08.

2. An amount of Rs.5,27,000/- has been drawn from B.R.G.F.

funds and the Ex-Sarpanch and Panchayat Secretary has to produce the M.B. for the said amount.

3. The audit report for the year 2006-07 is not submitted for which defects were not find out and the report may be called for.”

5. It is contended that the first allegation, which pertains to payment of staff salaries, cannot be termed as misconduct, as the Gram Panchayat’s works will be sanctioned by passing of resolutions, and as a Panchayat Secretary, the petitioner’s role is only limited to maintain a record of the resolutions passed by the Gram Panchayat. Further, the petitioner was never entrusted with any audit duties. Hence, the third allegation also cannot be termed as misconduct. It is further submitted that the petitioner was also never assigned with the duties of preparation and maintenance of Measurement Books (MB), and usually, in a Gram Panchayat, the Executive Authority and the concerned Assistant Engineer would be responsible for maintaining the Measurement Books (MB). Therefore, the second allegation is also baseless as the petitioner only appended his counter signature and has no role to play in the above matter.

6. It is further submitted that the petitioner was informed that the entire proceedings were set in motion at the instance of one Mr. P. Ravinder, who preferred a complaint before the Lokayuktha. However, while the petitioner was in the process of securing the information and copies of the said complaint, a Preliminary Enquiry was allegedly conducted behind the petitioner’s back and also a Report is alleged to have been submitted by the Mandal Parishad Development Officer, Sangareddy District, on the basis of which, respondent No.2 has issued the present impugned termination orders. However, no copies of the said report were furnished to the petitioner. It is further submitted that the Lokayuktha has only directed the authorities to expedite the enquiry and to finalize the same, but the same would not authorize the authorities to act in an arbitrary manner and terminate t