HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY Writ Petition No.15575 of 2008 Date: November 15, 2011 Between: Chilukuri Seetha Mahalakshmi … Petitioner And The Govt. of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Secretary, Panchayat Raj and Rural Development (Pts.II) Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad and others … Respondents Order: This writ petition is filed questioning the order dated 26.11.2007 passed in proceedings Rc.No.2855/07/A11, by the 2nd respondent, District Collector (Panchayat Wing) East Godavari, as confirmed by the order dated 12.10.2007, passed vide G.O.Rt.No.1413, Panchayat Raj and Rural Development (Pts.II) Department, by the 1st respondent-Government. Petitioner herein was the Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, Kandulapalem, Ramachandrapuram Mandal East Godavari District. On a complaint filed by the present Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat and MPTC that the petitioner, along with the Panchayat Secretary, during their tenure, had misappropriated an amount of Rs.36,000/- from the funds of the Gram Panchayat, by sending wrong proposals to the District Panchayat Officer to the effect that services of Sri G.Laxminarayana were availed on contract basis as Avenue Watcher and that an amount of Rs.1,500/- p.m., is paid to him for two years, i.e. from 01.12.2003 to 30.11.2005, proceedings were initiated to recover the said amount. After calling for preliminary report, enquiry was conducted by the District Collector, who is the competent authority, to recover such amount, under Section 265 of the A.P.Panchayat Raj, 1995. The charge against the petitioner is that though there was no appointment of Avenue Watcher; by creating false records, showing payment of salaries to the Avenue Watcher, form 01.12.2003 to 30.11.2005, petitioner and others have drawn a total amount of Rs.36,000/- towards salaries and thus misappropriated the said amount. In the order dated 25.11.2007, the 2nd respondent-District Collector, by recording a finding that there is misappropriation by the petitioner and others, ordered to recover 1/3rd of the misappropriated amount from the petitioner, i.e. Rs.12,000/-. Petitioner questioned the said order by way of appeal before the 1st respondent- Government. The 1st respondent/appellate authority, by calling for further report from the Divisional Panchayat Officer, confirmed the order of the 2nd respondent-District Collector dated 25.11.2007, vide G.O.Rt.No.1413, Panchayat Raj and Rural Development (Pts.II) Department. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Panchayat RaJ & Rural Development for the respondents. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that though a report is called for from the Divisional Panchayat Officer, a copy of such report is not furnished to the petitioner; in that view of the matter the order of the revisional authority is fit to be set aside. In this case, it is to be noticed that an amount of Rs.36,000/- was withdrawn on the ground of payment of salaries to one Mr.G.Laxminarayana, at the rate of Rs.1,500/- per month. A perusal of the order dated 04.05.2007 passed by the 2nd respondent-District Collector itself makes it clear that the very person who is alleged to have worked as Avenue Watcher, i.e. Mr.G.Laxminarayana, was also examined and he denied the signatures on the vouchers except 2 vouchers which he claims to have made at the instance of the husband of the petitioner. The said person himself admitted that he did not work as Avenue Watcher. But it is to be seen that vouchers were drawn on the ground of payment of salaries to him. Though there was no need to call for any report, in view of the allegations made against the petitioner, further report was called for, from the Divisional Panchayat Officer. As the petitioner had already participated in the original enquiry proceedings before the 2nd respondent-District Collector, she is not entitle to a copy of the report which is referred to in the order dated 12.10.2007. In view of the material on record and having regard to the findings recorded by the primary authority, as upheld by the appellate authority recording valid findings, I do not find any illegality in the impugned orders, to correct the same in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Writ petition is devoid of merits and is accordingly dismissed, granting two months’ time from today to the petitioner to deposit the amount as per the order of the 2nd respondent-District Collector. If the petitioner fails to deposit the amount within the time stipulated, it is open to the respondents to take steps to recover the amount in accordance with law. No costs. _____________________ (R.SUBHASH REDDY, J) November 15, 2011 MRR