IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSANDAND ELEVEN PRESENT: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION No.5790 OF 2006 Between: Pabbati Shoba Rani. … Petitioner. AND The District Collector (Panchayat Wing) Warangal District at Warangal and two others. … Respondents This Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION No.5790 OF 2006 O R D E R : The petitioner, the Sarpanch of Manchuppula Village, Palakurthy Mandal, Warangal District, assails her suspension from office under Sec.249(6) of the A.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 (for brevity “the Act of 1994) under the impugned proceedings dated 06-03-2006 passed by the Collector (Panchayat Wing), Warangal District. 2. This Court, by interim order dated 23-03-2006, suspended the impugned proceedings pending further orders. 3. The petitioner-Sarpanch was called upon by notice dated 17-01-2006 to produce the records of the Gram Panchayat for inspection. Upon belated production of the records by the petitioner, the Collector (Panchayat Wing), Warangal District, issued the impugned proceedings dated 06-03-2006 opining that the petitioner had committed grave irregularities in misappropriating a sum of Rs.2,17,909/- and not submitting the records in time with a malfide intention. He accordingly, directed her suspension from office under Section 249(6) of the Act of 1994. 4. Relevant to note, the suspension imposed upon the petitioner was not preceded by an opportunity of making a representation in so far as the allegations are concerned. The Proviso to Section 249 (6) of the Act of 1994 makes it explicit that no order of suspension under the said sub-section can be passed unless the person concerned had an opportunity of making a representation against the action proposed. 5. In the present case, though a notice was issued to the petitioner in respect of the production of records, the order of suspension is not based solely thereupon as the impugned proceedings also mention that the petitioner is alleged to have committed grave irregularities in misappropriating a sum of Rs.2,17,909/-. Further, she was not put on notice separately as to the proposed suspension on the ground of her alleged misappropriation of funds and failure to submit the records in time. In that view of the matter, there is a clear violation of the statutory provision. It may also be noted that in spite of this Court directing the District Collector (Panchayat Wing), Warangal District, to complete the enquiry and take appropriate final action in the matter in accordance with law, no steps were initiated in this regard. As the suspension under Sec.249(6) of the Act of 1994 is only an interim measure and the respondent authorities failed to complete the enquiry and take action in spite of being directed to do so by this Court, the order placing the petitioner under suspension cannot be sustained at this belated stage. 6. It is also to be noticed that the suspension under Sec.249(6) of the Act of 1994 is to be limited to a period of three months in the first instance, which can be extended by the Government up to a further period of three more months. The impugned proceedings do not even stipulate the period of suspension imposed upon the petitioner. There is thus a violation in this regard also. 7. Viewed from any angle, the impugned proceedings dated 06-03-2006 cannot be sustained. 8. The writ petition is accordingly allowed setting aside the proceedings dated 06-03-2006 passed by the District Collector (Panchayat Wing), Warangal District. 9. There shall be no order as to costs. __________________ SANJAY KUMAR, J Date: 03.02.2011. KVS THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION No.5790 OF 2006 February 3, 2011