THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.12191 OF 2010 10.06.2010 Between: G.Vasuram Naik ….Petitioner AND The District Collector (Panchayat Raj), Nizamabad District, Nizamabad, and others. …Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.12191 OF 2010 ORDER: The petitioner was elected as Sarpanch, Achanpally Gram Panchayat, Bodhan Mandal, Nizamabad District in 2006. The Upa Sarpanch lodged a complaint on 18.11.2009 alleging that petitioner committed financial irregularities and abused his office as Sarpanch. The District Collector got inquired into the same by District Panchayat Officer (DPO), who submitted a report. First respondent initiated action under Section 249(1) of the Andhra Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 (the Act, for brevity) and issued show cause notice to which petitioner submitted explanation. Again, the Divisional Panchayat Officer looked into the same and submitted remarks. Petitioner also submitted explanation and allegedly submitted records. Considering the matter, by order/notification No.677/2009-B5, dated 19.02.2010, the District Collector removed petitioner as Sarpanch under Section 249(1) of the Act. Petitioner unsuccessfully preferred an appeal under Section 249(7) of the Act to the Government – fourth respondent herein. Against the order of Government in G.O.Rt.No.688, Panchayat Raj and Rural Development (Pts-II) Department, dated 18.05.2010, petitioner filed instant writ petition. Counsel for petitioner submits that exercise of power by original authority as well as appellate authority is not in accordance with the provisions of Section 249(1) and (2) read with Section 249(7) of the Act and therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. The counsel vehemently contends that though petitioner produced all the records duly producing the acquittance and receipts for various works undertaken and complied by the Gram Panchayat under his leadership, both the authorities proceeded as if petitioner did not produce any records, and therefore, the findings recorded are per se perverse. He would then urge that the impugned order of Government is passed without giving reasons and therefore, it is unsustainable. These contentions are refuted by Assistant Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj. The order of the District Collector reveals that four charges were framed against petitioner and he was asked to show cause as to why he should not be removed under Section 249(1) of the Act. The first charge relates to misappropriation of Gram Panchayat funds amounting to Rs.3,54,117/-. The gravaman of the charge is that petitioner drew these amounts but did not produce proper accounts. When petitioner produces records, the District Collector found that the expenditure in a sum of Rs.91,328/- was in accordance with Rules and the remaining amount of Rs.2,31,590/- was paid without check measurements of the Engineers and yet another amount of Rs.31,199/- was paid though there are no Measurement Book (MB) records. Charge No.2 relates to misappropriation of Twelfth Finance Commission amounts. Petitioner allegedly withdrew Rs.1,54,150/- but did not produce MB records and paid amounts without approval of the concerned Engineer. Charge No.3 relates to misappropriation of Rs.17,000/- from Second Finance Commission funds and charge No.4 relates to misappropriation of Rs.65,093/- from Twelfth Finance Commission funds. In respect of all these funds, it was found that there are no MB records and amounts were released and paid by Sarpanch without prior approval of Gram Panchayat. Charge No.5 relates to misappropriation of Gram Panchayat funds towards various expenditure items in a total sum of Rs.8,98,016/-. Here also it was found that the records produced by petitioner accounted for part of the amounts and entire amount was not approved to have been spent properly. When the matter was heard by Government on 22.04.2010, petitioner sought time to produce the records. The Government refused to grant any time and dismissed the appeal observing as under. The case was heard on 22.04.2010. The Sarpanch and the District Panchayat Officer, Nizamabad District were attended the hearing. The Sarpanch has sought for some more time to produce the records for the works executed. It has observed that the Collector removed the Sarpanch from office on the ground that he has resorted to misuse of funds and abuse of power. The Collector has also held that an amount of Rs.1,80,928/- was misappropriated by the Sarpanch and that the works said to have been carried out were not check measured. It has also noticed that the Gram Panchayat has not accorded approval for the works executed by the Sarpanch. Executing the works without the sanction of Panchayat is a clear abuse of power under the Act. The Sarpanch has failed to exercise supervision and control over Panchayat Secretary and as a result, the Panchayat Secretary resulting in misappropriation of Panchayat funds to an extent of Rs.2,29,074/-. It is clear from the records that the Sarpanch has abused the powers conferred upon him under the Act and also resorted to misappropriation of funds. A perusal of orders of original authority and appellate authority would not sustain any of the submissions made by counsel for petitioner. The District Collector conducted a two-stage enquiry. After receiving the complaint of the Upa Sarpanch, he got it verified through Divisional Panchayat Officer and after petitioner submitted explanation to the show cause notice, the Collector called for the records of second respondent. All the records produced by the petitioner and receipts produced by petitioner were duly given credit and for the balance of amount, the petitioner did not offer any explanation. In every item of expenditure, there are clear findings that petitioner made payments without approval of the Engineer and for certain other works MB records were not even maintained. It is not disputed that whenever any development work is taken up by Gram Panchyat, unless and until the concerned Panchayat Engineer verifies the work and approves the same, the bills cannot be paid by Sarpanch. In this case, this rule was followed by the petitioner more in breach. The Government considered the record and came to the same conclusion. The writ petition, for the above brief reasons, is dismissed. No costs. _______________ (V.V.S.RAO, J) 10.06.2010 Pln