THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY Writ Petition No.27041 of 2009 ORDER: The petitioner was elected as Sarpanch of Rajupalem Gram Panchayat, Kirlampudi Mandal, East Godavari District. Alleging that she has misappropriated funds to the tune of Rs.2,49,376/-, the District Collector (Panchayat Wing), East Godavari, the 1st respondent, initiated proceedings under Section 249 of the A.P. Panchayat Raj Act (for short ‘the Act’). Proposing to suspend the petitioner, pending such enquiry, he issued a show cause notice, dated 24.08.2009. The petitioner submitted her explanation, on 05.09.2009. Not being satisfied with the same, the 1st respondent placed the petitioner under suspension, through his proceedings, dated 24.11.2009. This Writ Petition is filed challenging the said proceedings. Sri A.K.Kishore Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the petitioner was not provided with the records of the Gram Panchayat to enable her to submit explanation and even that was mentioned in the explanation submitted by her. He contends that the petitioner was not able to submit effective explanation, on account of the non-availability of the records. Learned Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj submits that, being the Sarpanch of the village, the petitioner was required to be in possession of and conversant with the records, and the impugned order does not suffer from any infirmity. The 1st respondent has initiated proceedings, alleging that the petitioner misappropriated Rs.2,49,376/-, and accordingly, issued a show cause notice under sub-section (6) of Section 249 of the Act. In her explanation, the petitioner stated, inter alia, that the records of the Gram Panchayat, including the measurement book and minutes of Grama Sabha, were not made available to her, and if they are furnished, she would deal with the allegations made against her. In the impugned order, it was mentioned that the records were given, as requested, under the Right to Information Act. The particulars of the records and the time at which they were furnished, are not indicated. On the one hand, the petitioner, who is the elected Sarpanch, complained that she has no access to the records. On the other hand, the impugned order discloses that information was furnished under the Right to Information Act. There appears to be some lapse on both the counts. The suspension ordered against the petitioner is for a period of three months. Substantial part thereof has already expired. Even during the left over period, the petitioner can prepare her defence, on the basis of the material that has already been furnished to her, or by perusing the record further, and in case, she filed any further representation, the same may be taken into account, before the period of suspension is extended beyond three months. Hence, the Writ Petition is disposed of, directing that the further explanation, that may be submitted by the petitioner, shall be taken into account, before the suspension, ordered against her, is extended beyond three months. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J. Dt.27-01-2010. GJ