HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY Writ Petition No.21327 of 2008 Date: November 15, 2011 Between: Gangula Gangadar, S/o.Gangaram … Petitioner And The Govt. of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by District Collector (Panchayat) Nizamabad District and another … Respondents Order: This writ petition is filed questioning the validity of Memo No.165/2008-A1 (Panch.) 12, dated 21.06.2008, issued by the 2nd respondent, Divisional Panchayat Officer, Nizamabad. Petitioner was the Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, Madapur, Maklur Mandal, Nizamabad District. After the expiry of the tenure of his office, on the instructions of the 1st respondent, District Collector (Panchayat) Nizamabad, 2nd respondent lodged a complaint against the petitioner before the Station House Officer, Maklur alleging that he had misappropriated an amount of Rs.69,706/- from the funds of Jawahar Rozgar Yojana scheme. The same was registered as Cr.No.32/01 and numbered as C.C.No.828 of 2001 before the learned Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nizamabad. After conducting trial, the petitioner was acquitted, vide judgment dated 31.03.2006. While things stood thus, the 2nd respondent issued the impugned memo demanding to deposit an amount of Rs.69,706/-, within a period of 7 days therefrom, on the ground that the petitioner, during his tenure as Sarpanch of Madapur Gram Panchayat, misappropriated the said amount. It is the case of the petitioner that before issuing the impugned demand notice, no enquiry is conducted by giving an opportunity to him and thus respondents are not vested with any power to recover the alleged misappropriated amount, pursuant to the impugned memo. It is stated that if there is an allegation of misappropriation, enquiry is to be conducted and findings are to be recorded, but without doing so, merely based on the audit reports, the alleged misappropriated amount is straightway directed to be deposited. At the stage of admission, by order dated 29.09.2008, interim stay was granted and the same continued all-along. Though the writ petition is of the year 2008, no counter-affidavit is filed. During the course of arguments, it is submitted that no order is passed under Section 265 of the A.P.Panchayat Raj Act, 1994. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, I have perused the impugned memo. In spite of acquittal of the petitioner from the criminal proceedings earlier initiated against him on the ground of alleged misappropriation of funds, it is always open to the respondents-authorities to recover the misappropriated amount by passing appropriate orders under the provisions of the Act. In this regard, a specific reference can be made to Section 265 of the Act. Under Section 265 of the Act, the Commissioner/Collector, if he is of the view that there is a loss, waste or misapplications of any money or other property owned by or vested in the gram panchayat, by the Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat, he is empowered to pass an order directing such person to reimburse such loss, waste or misapplication unless such person proves that he had acted in good faith. In this case, the specific allegation of the petitioner is that no order is passed by any authority recording any findings on the alleged misappropriated amount and in the absence of any such findings it is not open to recover the amount, merely based on the audit reports. A perusal of the impugned memo does not indicate passing of any order as required under Section 265 of the Act. For the aforesaid reasons, the impugned memo is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, Memo No.165/2008- A1 (Panch.) 12, dated 21.06.2008, is set aside. Writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. However, this order will not preclude the respondents from initiating appropriate action in accordance with law if there is any misappropriation by the petitioner. No costs. _____________________ (R.SUBHASH REDDY, J) November 15, 2011 MRR