THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.23783 of 2008 (ON BEING MENTIONED) ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed challenging G.O.Rt.No.1306, Panchayat Raj & Rural Development (PTS.II) Department, dated 26.08.2008, issued by the 1st respondent, as well as the consequential proceedings, dated 05.09.2008, issued by the 3rd respondent. The matter was heard, at length, on 08.04.2009, and an order was dictated, partly allowing the writ petition. However, on verification of the record, at a subsequent stage, discloses that a different view is possible. Therefore, the matter was listed today ‘for Being Mentioned’. The matter was heard once again, and accordingly, the following order is passed. The 5th respondent was elected as Sarpanch of Virawada Gram Panchayat, Pithapuram Mandal, East Godavari District, and the petitioner was elected as Upa Sarpanch. The petitioner submitted a complaint before the District Collector (Panchayat Wing), East Godavari, the 3rd respondent herein, alleging that the 5th respondent misappropriated the funds of the Gram Panchayat. The District Panchayat Officer, the 4th respondent herein, submitted a report, stating that a sum of Rs.2,44,725/-, was misappropriated. Taking this into account, the 3rd respondent initiated proceedings under Section 249 of the A.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 (for short ‘the Act’), against the 5th respondent. After issuing a show cause notice on 20.01.2008, the 3rd respondent placed the 5th respondent under suspension. Aggrieved thereby, the 5th respondent filed a revision before the 1st respondent. The revision was allowed through orders in G.O.Rt.No.1306, dated 26.08.2008. Apart from setting aside the order of suspension, the 1st respondent caused further enquiry and virtually closed the matter, on the ground that the 5th respondent has remitted a sum of Rs.12,579/-. The petitioner challenges G.O.Rt.No.1306, dated 26.08.2008, on several grounds. It is urged that the subject matter of the revision before the 1st respondent was only an order of suspension, and even if the same is set aside, the further steps contemplated under Section 249 of the Act, cannot be scuttled. The petitioner contends that the show cause notice, based on the allegations, was yet to be issued and the 1st respondent does not preempt the further proceedings. Learned Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj submits that the powers conferred upon the 1st respondent under Section 264 of the Act are very wide in their purport. It is stated that the 1st respondent has not only examined the correctness of the orders of suspension, but also caused enquiry into the allegations against the 5th respondent and recorded a finding on merits also. Heard Sri J.Prabhakar, learned counsel for the petitioner, and learned Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj. Though the 5th respondent was served with notice, she has not chosen to enter appearance. On a complaint submitted by the petitioner against the 5th respondent, the 3rd respondent initiated proceedings under Section 249 of the Act. It is a comprehensive provision that confers powers upon the District Collector to remove a Sarpanch, in case acts of misconduct or violation of law, are proved. Sub-section (6) thereof confers power upon the Collector to place the Sarpanch under suspension, pending enquiry. Even for this purpose, a show cause notice has to be issued. After issuing notice to the 5th respondent, the 3rd respondent placed her under suspension through proceedings, dated 24.03.2008. The 5th respondent availed the remedy of revision against the order of suspension. The principal ground urged on behalf of the petitioner is that even if the 1st respondent was satisfied that there existed various grounds to interfere with the order of suspension, at the most, the order of suspension could have been set aside and that there is no justification for the 1st respondent to set aside the entire proceedings. It is no doubt true that suspension of a Sarpanch, occurs at one phase of the proceedings and it is to be followed by issuance of charge memo indicating the allegations and an order to be passed by the 3rd respondent, as regards the removal. In the instant case, apart from interfering with the order of suspension, the 1st respondent proceeded to observe that the petitioner had since remitted the amount said to have been misappropriated by her. In effect, the said observation terminates the entire proceedings against the 5th respondent. Though the petitioner may be technically correct in his submission, that the 1st respondent has expanded the scope of the revision before it, the fact remains that the observation as regards the remission of the amount was not made independently. During the pendency of the revision, the 3rd respondent forwarded the proceedings, dated 04.07.2008. The purport thereof is mentioned in para 5 of the impugned G.O. It reads as under: “In the reference 4th read above, the District Collector (PW), East Godavari District has informed that, after verification of Vouchers and Bills in his Roc.No.955/2007-A3, dt.04.07.2008 issued a SCN Under section 265(1) of A.P.P.R.Act, 1994 calling upon the Petitioner to show cause as to why an amount of Rs.12,579/- should not be recovered from her as the expenditure was incurred without sufficient voucher and Bills. The Petitioner has remitted the said amount of Rs.12,579/- vide Chelan’s No.3656, dated 08.07.2008.” From this, it becomes clear that the 3rd respondent did proceed further in the matter by issuing show cause notice, and on a consideration of the same, fixed the liability to the extent of Rs.12,579/- . In the show cause notice, the 5th respondent was directed to explain as to why the said amount shall not be recovered, on the ground that the expenditure was incurred without sufficient vouchers and bills. Promptly, the 5th respondent remitted the amount, vide challan No.3656, dated 08.07.2008. Therefore, it becomes clear that the determination of the liability of the 5th respondent to the tune of Rs.12,579/- and remission thereof, is not at all attributable to the revision filed before the 1st respondent. The said development has taken place in the proceedings pending before the 3rd respondent. Except taken into account the same, the 1st respondent did not do anything further. It is also evident that, in the operative portion of the G.O., the relief was confined only the order of suspension. Nowhere in the impugned order, the 1st respondent has prevented the other respondents from taking further steps. The termination of the proceedings, initiated by the 3rd respondent, under Section 265 of the Act, has absolutely nothing to do with the impugned order. Hence, the Writ Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J. Dated:17.04.2009. GJ