IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION No. 8154 of 2005 Between: Chikkala Satyanarayana, S/o. Chikkala Somaiah, Yetapaka Grampanchayat, (Now under suspension), Bhadrachalam Mandal, Khammam District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The District Collector, (Panchayat Wing) Khammam District. 2 The Mandal Parithat Development Officer, Bhadrachalam, Khammam District. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ, Order or direction more in the nature or Mandamus declaring the orders passed by the first respondent in Rc.No. P6/799/2003, dt. 22-3-2005 directing for recovery of an amount of Rs. 98,396/- from the petitioner without following any due process of law and without there being any power and authority and directing the Mandal Parishad Development Officer, Bhadrachalam, to give effect to the proceedings under Revenue Recovery Act for effecting recovery of the said amounts as highly arbitrary, illegal and violative of Article 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution and also contrary to Section 265 of A.P. Panchayat Raj Act 1994 and consequentially declare that no amounts can be recovered from the petitioner and to pass such other order or orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI P.V.RAMANA Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ & RURAL DEV. The Court made the following : ORDER: This writ petition is filed questioning the proceedings dated 22.03.2005 of the 1st respondent, namely District Collector (Panchayat Section), Khammam. It appears, in the elections conducted in the month of September, 2001, the petitioner was elected as a Sarpanch of Yetapaka Gram Panchayat, Bhadrachalam Mandal, Khammam District. While that being so, on the allegations levelled against the petitioner that he has misappropriated the funds of Gram Panchayat, an enquiry was conducted by the Divisional Panchayat Officer, Bhadrachalam, and he submitted his enquiry report on 10.05.2004. Basing on the said report, a show cause notice under Section 249 (6) of A.P.Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 (for short ‘the Act’) was issued to the petitioner on 27.05.2004 by the 1st respondent calling for his explanation as to why he should not be suspended from the post of Sarpanch. Thereupon, the petitioner submitted his explanation to the said show cause notice on 08.06.2004. However, subsequently, the Extension Officer (PR & RD), Bhadrachalam, on 13.09.2004, submitted a detailed report that the petitioner committed certain irregularities. Ultimately, the 1st respondent, by his proceedings dated 14.10.2004, suspended the petitioner from the post of Sarpanch, and simultaneously, the 1st respondent also issued another show cause notice on the same day i.e., on 14.10.2004 asking the petitioner to show cause as to why the alleged misappropriated amount of Gram Panchayat should not be recovered from him and requiring him to remit the said amount into the concerned account and also to submit his explanation thereto. Pursuant to the show cause notice issued on 14.10.2004, the petitioner submitted his explanation to the District Panchayat Officer, Khammam, on 08.11.2004 denying the allegations made against him and requesting to reconsider the matter and revoke the order of suspension and the order passed for recovery of the alleged misappropriated funds as also to pass necessary orders for his continuation as Sarpanch of Yetapaka Gram Panchayat, Bhadrachalam Mandal. Thereafter, the 1st respondent, by rejecting the explanation submitted by the petitioner on 08.11.2004, passed the impugned order dated 22.03.2005 with a direction to the Mandal Parishath Development Officer, Bhadrachalam, the 2nd respondent, to recover an amount of Rs.98,396/- from the petitioner under Section 265 (1) of the Act, G.O.Ms.No.118, Revenue (LR.II) Section, dated 18.03.2002, and Section 52(B) of Revenue Recovery Act, 1864 and to deposit the said amounts and inform the same to his office. The grievance of the petitioner is that he was not furnished with the report dated 10.05.2004 of the Divisional Panchayat Officer, Bhadrachalam and the report dated 13.09.2004 of the Extension Officer (PR & RD), Bhadrachalam, basing on which the show cause notice dated 27.05.2004 was issued as also the orders of suspension and recovery dated 14.10.2004 were passed, and that in spite of his request to furnish the same, they were not furnished to him. It is his further grievance that the 1st respondent passed the impugned order without furnishing any reasons for rejection of the explanation submitted by him. Respondent No.1 filed a detailed counter affidavit denying the allegations made by the petitioner and supporting the impugned order. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj & Rural Development appearing for the 1st respondent, learned Standing Counsel for Z.P.P., M.P.P. and Gram Panchayats appearing for the 2nd respondent, and perused the impugned order and other material made available on record. From a thorough reading of the impugned order, it is clear that there is no discussion with regard to furnishing of the report dated 10.05.2004 of the Divisional Panchayat Officer, Bhadrachalam, and the report dated 13.09.2004 of the Extension Officer (PR & RD), Bhadrachalam, to the petitioner. Further, in the impugned order, except saying that the explanation of the petitioner was rejected, no detailed reasons for coming to such conclusion are furnished. When the petitioner submitted an explanation stating that the reports dated 10.05.2004 and 13.09.2004 were not furnished to him, it was the basic duty of the authority, who was conducting an enquiry into the matter, to supply those documents to the petitioner and call for his detailed explanation, but no such procedure was followed. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the impugned order suffers from gross violation of principles of natural justice and the same is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed setting aside the order dated 22.03.2005 of the 1st respondent. However, this will not preclude the respondents from conducting a detailed enquiry by furnishing all the documents as required by the petitioner and passing appropriate orders as per law. No order as to costs. _____________ C.V.RAMULU,J 09.07.2009 v v