IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION NO : 17328 of 2008 Between: N.Chandra Sekhar Reddy S/o.N.Munikrishna Reddy Gram Panchayat Rompicherla, Rompicherla Mandal, Chittoor District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The District Collector (PW) Chittoor. 2 The District Panchayat Officer, Chittoor. 3 The Commissioner for Panchayat Raj and Rural Employment, A.P., Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to to issue a writ, order or direction more in the nature of Certiorari calling for the records relating to the Order of the A.P. Administrative Tribunal in O.A.No. 4295 of 2008, dated 31.7.2008 and the orders issued by the District Collector (Pt.Wing), Chittoor in Proc.Rc.No.4952/2006/A2 (Pts), dated 16.6.2008 and struck down the same and consequently hold that the petitioner is entitled for reinstatement into service with all consequential benefits and pass such other and further orders. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.D.BALA KISHAN RAO Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR SERVICES I The Court made the following : HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU Writ Petition No.17328 of 2008 ORDER: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Ghulam Mohammed) This writ petition is filed seeking to quash the order dated 31-07-2008 passed in O.A.No.4295 of 2008 on the file of Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal and to hold that the petitioner is entitled for reinstatement into service with all consequential benefits. 2. The details necessary for deciding the writ petition are that the petitioner filed above O.A. challenging the order dated 16-6-2008 placing him under suspension. The misconduct alleged against him is that he had misappropriated the funds and also fabricated the record while working as Bill Collector in Thiruchanur Gram Panchayat. It is averred that the petitioner had remitted the shortfall amount by shifting the responsibility on the other staff and also submitted the explanation, but the disciplinary authority has not proceeded further in the matter. The Tribunal after considering the rival contentions, directed the official respondents to issue Articles of Charge and conclude the disciplinary proceedings within a certain period, and if not, reinstate the petitioner into service. 3 . Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the show cause notice was issued by the District Panchayat Officer, who is the appointing authority, whereas the suspension order was passed by the District Collector, who is not competent to do so. Further, it is contended that during the relevant period, he was not working as Bill Collector of Tiruchanur Gram Panchayat. Therefore, there was no necessity for his suspension for the same. 4. Learned Government Pleader contended that the charge relates to non-remittance of the amounts collected towards tax and the same amounts to misappropriation of funds, and as such, the Tribunal rightly ordered the conclusion of disciplinary proceedings within a time frame. 5 . We have considered the rival contentions and perused the record. The show cause notice was issued to the petitioner as to why he had not remitted the amount collected towards tax. It is averred that the petitioner had submitted explanation, along with the copies of challans through which he alleged to have remitted an amount of Rs.2,33,225/- into the Sub-Treasury, Tirupathi. Whether the petitioner had misappropriated the amount, why he had retained the amount collected towards tax for some time with him and why he had remitted the amount through three different challans, are all questions that will have to be decided in the enquiry. In the circumstances, we are not inclined to express any opinion on the merits of the case and also of the opinion that the impugned order does not call for any interference in exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 6. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed at the stage of admission. ___________________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J. 08-08-2008 _________________ C.V.RAMULU, J. Bsc