THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH W.P.No.6870 of 2006 Dt.6.4.2006 Between: Ravulapalli Savitramma … Petitioner And The District Panchayat Officer, Ongole, Prakasam District and others. … Respondents ORDER: Petitioner questions the proceedings of the District Panchayat Officer, Ongole in Roc.No.2400/205(Pts).A1, dt.23.11.2005 in prohibiting the petitioner from operation of drawal of general/EFC/ SGRY/SFC funds of Vangapadu Gram Panchayat of Kanigiri Mandal, Prakasam District as illegal and arbitrary. The case of the petitioner is that she was the elected Sarpanch of Vangapadu Gram Panchayat in Kanigiri Mandal, Prakasam District and she has been discharging duties without any complaints whatsoever. While so, the 3rd respondent sent a report dated 27.9.2005 stating that the petitioner misappropriated certain public funds and recommended to freeze the cheque drawing powers of the petitioner and based on the said report the District Panchayat Officer, Ongole/first respondent issued a show cause notice to submit explanation within seven days and pending final action the petitioner was also prohibited from operation of drawal of General funds and the 3rd respondent was permitted to operate the same. The annexure issued to the said show cause notice alleges that the petitioner had drawn an amount of Rs.50,000/- from the General fund on 21.10.2005 and failed to account for it and the petitioner had also drawn an amount of Rs.1,11,835/- from JGSY/SGRY from different spells and failed to account for the same. It is stated that the petitioner has submitted explanation in the month of December, 2005 before the first respondent and the first respondent sent a copy of the said explanation to the Divisional Panchayat Officer/2nd respondent for taking necessary action. It is stated that the 2nd respondent has not sent the report after verifying the said explanation. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj and Rural Development on behalf of the respondents. The case of the petitioner is that she never withdrawn the amount of Rs.50,000/- from the General funds on 21.10.2005 and in so far as the second irregularity is concerned it is stated that the said amounts were withdrawn and the works are under progress and the same will be recorded in M.Book. It is stated that even after completion of the said works the same were not recorded in the M.Book. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the first respondent is directed to got the report from the 2nd respondent with regard to the completion of works and consider and dispose of the said explanation of the petitioner within three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. No costs. _______________ V.ESWARAIAH, J. 6.4.2006 kpr