HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No.13270 of 2000 ORDER: The petitioners were elected as members of the Mankhal Gram Panchayat in the elections held in June, 1995. The third respondent was elected as the Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat. It is the petitioners’ case that, ever since the third respondent took charge of his office, he was acting in an illegal and arbitrary manner; had illegally drawn Rs.2,76,790/- from the Gram Panchayat funds and Rs.3,60,442/- from Jawahar Rojgar Yojana (JRY) funds without sanction and there being any proposal for undertaking any development by the Gram Panchayat; and had illegally granted approvals to various encroachers to raise constructions in lands belonging to the Gram Panchayat and in a muslim grave yard, which is a wakf property. The petitioners would assert that the second respondent, after conducting preliminary enquiry, had withdrawn the cheque drawing power of the third respondent; issued a show cause notice dated 28.11.1997, alleging withdrawal of Rs.3,60,442/- and Rs.2,76,790/- from JRY funds and Gram Panchayat funds respectively; the fourth respondent had issued a notice dated 29.09.1997 to the third respondent stating that he was holding a public enquiry into the allegations made against him; and, despite several representations dated 28.08.1999, 04.02.2000 and 22.03.2000 submitted by them, which were acknowledged by respondents 1 and 2, no action was taken against the third respondent under Section 249(1) of the A.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 (for short ‘the Act’). Several other allegations are also made in the writ petition. It is disheartening to note that, despite such serious allegations having been levelled against the third respondent, neither he nor the other respondents have chosen to file counter affidavits. When the matter came up for hearing, neither is the Learned Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj present nor are the unofficial respondents represented by counsel. As a result, this Court has perforce to accept the averments stated, in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, as true. The petitioners have sought a direction to respondents 1 and 2 to conclude the enquiry initiated by the second respondent in his proceedings dated 28.11.1997. In the light of the serious allegations made against the third respondent, including of misappropriation of public funds, respondents 1 and 2 ought to have taken necessary action in the matter. Since no counter affidavit is filed, it is not known whether any action was taken against the third respondent. Even if the term of the third respondent has ended, it does not absolve respondents 1 and 2 from taking action against him and, if the allegations of misappropriation are found to be true, to take necessary steps to recover the sum so misappropriated and take such action as is available to them in law. The Writ Petition is disposed of directing respondents 1 and 2 to complete the enquiry, initiated by the second respondent by his proceedings dated 28.11.1997, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and, if the third respondent is found guilty of misappropriation, to take immediate steps thereafter for recovery of the amounts so misappropriated and take such action as is required in accordance with law. However, in the circumstances, without costs. RAMESH RANGANATHAN,J Date:22.07.2010 usd