THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.8438 of 2010 Dated:16.04.2010 Between: Sri P.Rammohan Rao. …Petitioner and The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep.by its Special Chief Secretary, Panchayat Raj & Rural Development Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad, And others. …Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION No.8438 of 2010 ORDER: The petitioner is a Sarpanch of Aluru Gram Panchayat of Chevella Mandal in Ranga Reddy District. On 14.08.2007 the District Collector issued a show cause notice framing three charges, namely, that the petitioner has not been properly maintaining the Office due to which the villagers are facing problems for supply of drinking water, sanitation, that he misused his powers vested under the Andhra Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 (the Act), that he failed to produce the connected records before the Divisional Panchayat Officer, Chevella, which he promised to do so, that he has drawn an amount of Rs.4,52,241/- from Gram Panchayat funds and failed to produce the connected records. The petitioner submitted explanation. Considering the same, by order dated 01.01.2008 the District Collector suspended the petitioner under Section 249(6) of the Act. Feeling aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred a revision petition (the Government wrongly treats it as appeal petition). He also sought stay. By memo No.1597/Pts-II/A2/2008, dated 21.01.2008, the Government while calling for the records and remarks from the District Collector stayed the suspension order. As a consequence thereof, the District Collector issued orders on 30.01.2008 allowing the petitioner to continue as Sarpanch. On 19.01.2010 respondent No.1 passed orders vacating the interim orders. Therefore, the District Collector issued orders on 29.03.2010 to the effect that the petitioner shall continue to be under suspension for a period of three months as Sarpanch. The order of the Government and the consequential order of the District Collector are challenged in the writ petition. Counsel for the petitioner contends that as the period of suspension under Section 249(6) of the Act could be only for a period of three months, the petitioner can no more be continued under suspension. The submission cannot be accepted. Though the District Collector passed orders on 01.01.2008 placing the petitioner under suspension, from 21.01.2008 till the District Collector passed orders on 29.03.2010 the petitioner was continued as Sarpanch by reason of the stay granted by the Government. Therefore, the period of three months suspension has not been expired. A perusal of Section 249(6) of the Act would show that three months initial suspension ordered by the District Collector means the actual three months and it does not include the period of stay. A perusal of the Government order shows that revision/appeal petition filed by the petitioner is still pending. Therefore, the Government may pass appropriate orders in the same within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order after giving notice to the petitioner and affording opportunity of being heard. The Writ Petition with the above observations is accordingly dismissed. _____________ (V.V.S.RAO, J) 16.04.2010 vs