Nadimigorla Chandrasekhar S/O N.Pakirappa, v. The State Of Andhra Pradesh Rep. By

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD

FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH FRIDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND FIFTEEN

Present

Between:

Nadimigorla Chandrasekhar, s/o. N. Pakirappa, Aged about 44 years, Filed Assistant, Maddimadugu Gram Panchayat, Nallacheruvu Mandal, Ananthapuram District.

.. Petitioner AND The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Panchayat Raj Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad & 3 others .. Respondents The Court made the following:

ORDER:

The petitioner was a Field Assistant. On the allegation of grave irregularities in performance of duties and responsibilities as Field Assistant, disciplinary action was initiated resulting in the order of termination of service by proceedings of the Project Director, District Water Management Corporation, Ananthapuram, Ananthapuram District (3rd respondent), dated 02.08.2014. Aggrieved by the said proceedings, initially the petitioner petitioned in the Praja Vani to the District Collector, Ananthapuram, Ananthapuram District (2nd respondent). The District Collector in turn forwarded the same to the Project Director. On a verification, the petitioner was informed by the Project Director vide his endorsement, dated 30.09.2014, that he has to prefer appeal and cannot agitate such a grievance in Praja Vani. In response, the petitioner claims to have filed appeal on 07.10.2014 to the District Collector Ananthapuram District (2nd respondent). The grievance of the petitioner is that

so far, the said appeal also is not disposed of.

2. As seen from the endorsement on the first page of the representation, dated 07.10.2014, the District Collector has again forwarded the said appeal to the Project Director against whose orders, the appeal is filed. It appears that the District Collector is ignorant of the circular instructions of the Government, which prescribe the channel of preferring appeal to the District Collector and he is the appellate authority over the decisions of the Project Director on the Field Assistants. Thus, it is mandatory for the District Collector to consider the appeal independently on his own and cannot forward the same to the authority against whose decision, the appeal is filed.

I hope and expect that in future, the District Collector shall be careful in dealing with such matters.

3. Since the appeal is pending, without expressing any opinion on merits of the contentions urged in the writ petition, the Writ Petition is disposed of, directing the District Collector, Ananthapuram, Ananthapuram District (2nd respondent) to consider and pass orders on the appeal filed by the petitioner on 07.10.2014, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of eight (8) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition shall stand closed.

_________________ P.NAVEEN RAO, J Date: 20th November, 2015 KL

Date: 20th November, 2015

KL