SEETHINI CHIRANJEEVI Vs. DIST COLLECTOR/CHAIRMAN VISAKHAPATNAM DIST

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Present Writ Petition has been filed for the following relief:

(2.) Brief facts of the case as per the averments in the affidavit filed along with the Writ Petition are that the petitioner was appointed as Community Volunteer (CV) on 06.06.2007 on honorarium of Rs.1,500/- per month as per the resolution passed by Respondent No.3, which was approved by the 1st respondent, after fulfilling the prescribed qualifications. Since then, he was discharging his duties without any remarks. While the matter stood thus, respondent No.1 issued proceedings in Rc.No.154/2011 HR, dated 24.03.2012, wherein the petitioner was removed from service straight away without giving any opportunity to the petitioner before removing from service, which is in violation of principles of natural justice.

(3.) Respondent No.2 filed a Counter Affidavit on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 and 2. It is contended by respondent No.2 in the Counter Affidavit that on 15-02-2011 at Prajavani Public Grievance Cell, a complaint was received by respondent No.1 from Sri K. Arjuna, Sarpanch, Z.Bennavaram Panchayat and others of Ravikamatham Mandal, alleging that the petitioner has enrolled his father name in " Aam Admi Bhima Yojana" scheme, which is implemented by the Government exclusively for the landless agricultural poor and the petitioner while enrolling his father's name in the schedule, added his name also as nominee even though the petitioner is having Ac.0.70 cents wet Land and AC.1.13 cents of Dry Land, by using his influence as Community Volunteer. As per the direction of Respondent No.1, respondent No.2 conducted enquiry and submitted a report on 17-03-2011, in which it was recommended to recover the compensation amount of Rs.30,000/- paid to the petitioner as a benefit under " Aam Admi Bhima Yojana" and to remove the petitioner from the post of Community Volunteer. Basing on the enquiry report, respondent No.1 issued the impugned proceedings, dated 24-03-2012, in which the services of the petitioner were terminated. It is averred in the counter affidavit that though the mother of the petitioner was alive, intentionally the petitioner nominated his name as nominee with a malafide intention, which clearly shows his wilful attitude and liable for termination.