(1.) The petitioner seeks a Writ of Mandamus declaring the proceedings in Rc.No.277/2020/EGS/Legal dated 08.07.2020 passed by the 3rd respondent, terminating the petitioner from the post of Field Assistant, Gedda Kancharam Gram Panchayat of G. Sigadam Mandal, Srikakulam District, without considering the enquiry reports dated 13.09.2017 and 25.07.2018 and without passing a speaking order, as illegal, arbitrary and violative of principles of natural justice and provisions of National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme Act, 2005 and consequently to set aside the impugned order and reinstate the petitioner into service.
(2.) The petitioner's case is thus. He was appointed as Field Assistant, Gedda Kancharam Gram Panchayat of G.Sigadam Mandal, Srikakulam District under Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme in the year 2007 and since then he has been discharging his duties promptly and to the utmost satisfaction of his Superiors and there were no adverse remarks against him from any corner till date. However, due to the politically motivated complaints, the 3rd respondent issued show cause notice and suspension proceedings in Rc.No.277/2017/EGS/HR, dated 25.07.2019 alleging that one Nakka Prasada Rao, former Sarpanch of Gedda Kancharam Village and wage seekers gave a complaint dated 15.07.2017 against the petitioner alleging that he misappropriated Rs.68 Lakhs by using benami musters between 2012-13 and 2018-19 and also issued less wages to the wage seekers and sought for appropriate action. The petitioner submitted his detailed written explanation on 30.07.2019 to the 3rd respondent as against the show cause notice served on him. In his explanation, he clearly stated that in the year 2018 the Assistant Project Director, Etcherla Cluster, Srikakulam District conducted enquiry in the presence of wage seekers and on 24.07.2018 the Vigilance and Enforcement Officer also conducted enquiry and found that the allegations against him were not proved and in his written explanation, he requested to consider those enquiry reports and drop the further action against him. However, to his utter surprise, the 3rd respondent without considering his explanation and earlier reports and also without examining the material evidence available on record, issued the impugned proceedings and terminated him from the service. Hence, the Writ Petition.
(3.) Heard learned counsel for petitioner, Sri Srinivas Ambati and learned Government Pleader for Panchayatraj representing respondent No.1 and Sri M. Srirama Chandra Murthy, learned Standing Counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3.