THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V. ESWARAIAH W.P.No.9161 of 2002 ORDER: Petitioner questions, the order, dated 12-11-2001, passed by the 1st respondent-District Collector, Chittoor, directing the 3rd respondent- Divisional Panchayat Officer, Chandragiri, Chittoor District, to prosecute him for the offence under Section 409 of IPC and to file a complaint before the Court concerned. It is the case of the petitioner that he was elected as Sarpanch of Settipalli Gram Panchayat, Tirupati Urban Mandal, Chittoor District, and worked from 14-02-1997 to 16-02-2002. Thereafter, his wife was elected as Sarpanch. It is stated that the 1st respondent, basing on the report of the 3rd respondent, issued a show-cause notice, dated 12-09-2001, alleging that the petitioner misused the funds of the Gram Panchayat and sought for explanation within seven days, failing which, necessary action would be taken. It is stated that the 3rd respondent, without conducting any enquiry, illegally submitted a report, basing on which the 1st respondent issued the impugned order, which is illegal and unsustainable. Hence, the present writ petition. On the other hand, the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents submits that pursuant to a petition filed by the Upa Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat, the 3rd respondent conducted an enquiry and submitted a report. In the mean time, the Extension Officer (Pts), Chandragiri, conducted preliminary enquiry on 04-12-1999 and submitted a report, dated 15-01-2000, stating that the petitioner misused the funds of the Gram Panchayat. The Extension Officer (Pts), Chandragiri further stated that the petitioner failed to produce records for inspection despite issuance of four notices. The 2nd respondent also reported that the petitioner failed to produce records though notice, dated 10-03-2000, was issued to him. The 3rd respondent was asked to enquire into the allegations levelled against the petitioner and submit a detailed report. Meanwhile, the petitioner was prohibited from drawing Gram Panchayat funds to prevent him to misuse the Panchayat funds. The 3rd respondent submitted a report, dated 19-07-2001, stating that the petitioner misused the funds drawn by him. Accordingly, basing on the report of the 3rd respondent, the 1st respondent issued a show- cause notice, dated 12-09-2001, asking the petitioner as to why action should not be taken against him as per the rules for misusing the funds of the Gram Panchayat. The said notice, dated 12-09-2001 was served on the petitioner on 03-10-2001, but he failed to submit any explanation and, therefore, the impugned order, dated 12-11-2001, was passed to prosecute the petitioner for misusing the funds of the Gram Panchayat. As the petitioner failed to submit any explanation to the show-cause notice, having received the same on 03-10-2001, the impugned order was passed to prosecute the petitioner for the offence under Section 409 IPC. In order to recover the misused funds, sanction was accorded by the 1st respondent for prosecution under Section 409 IPC and therefore, the same cannot be held as illegal and without jurisdiction. The issue as to whether the petitioner misused the Gram Panchayat funds or not, is a subject matter of final orders that might have been passed, pursuant to the show-cause notice, dated 12-09-2001. It is not in dispute that the 3rd respondent vide his proceedings, dated 18-07-2001, submitted a report to the 2nd respondent stating that the petitioner misused the public funds of Rs.16,27,802/- and accordingly, requested the 1st respondent to issue a show-cause notice and to accord permission for prosecution. Pursuant to the said report, the 1st respondent issued a show-cause notice and accorded permission for prosecution. As long as the said enquiry proceedings are not questioned, the petitioner is not entitled to question the impugned order. Therefore, it cannot be said that the petitioner is not liable for prosecution under Section 409 IPC. Hence, I do not see any merits in the writ petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. It is, however, open to the petitioner to question the final orders, if any passed, for recovery of the alleged amounts, pursuant to the show-cause notice, dated 12-09-2001. There shall be no order as to costs. ___________ 29-07-2010 Prv