THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.7090 of 2009 ORDER: The petitioner was elected as a Sarpanch of Digavalli Gram Panchayat, Nuzivid Mandal, Krishna District in the year 2006. Alleging that he did not account for several works and the amounts spent therefor, the District Panchayat Officer, Krishna District, the second respondent herein, passed an order, dated 03.01.2009, prohibiting the petitioner from operating the funds of the Gram Panchayat until further orders. Simultaneously, proceedings were initiated under Section 249 of the Andhra Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 (for short ‘the Act’) by the District Collector, Krishna District, the first respondent herein. A show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 19.12.2008. On the ground that the petitioner failed to submit explanation, the first respondent passed an order, dated 31.01.2009, directing his removal from the office of Sarpanch. The petitioner preferred an appeal before the Principal Secretary to Government, Panchayat Raj Department, the third respondent herein, under Section 249 (7) of the Act. It is alleged that the appeal is not being taken up for hearing. The petitioner contends that he is not educated and that even while he was taking steps to file the explanation, the impugned order was passed. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj. This writ petition is filed complaining mainly that the third respondent has not taken up the appeal or the application for stay for hearing. Strictly speaking, the order of removal passed by the first respondent is not subject matter of the writ petition. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner has pointed out that the order of removal was passed without giving adequate opportunity to the petitioner and it is almost ex parte in nature. The learned Government Pleader also addressed arguments as regards the same. The petitioner appears to be an illiterate, except that he is in a position to write his name in Telugu as his signature. He suffered an order, dated 03.01.2009, passed by the second respondent, prohibiting him from operating the funds of the Gram Panchayat. Even while he was taking necessary steps vis-à-vis such proceedings, the order, dated 31.01.2009, came to be passed. The show cause notices in both the matters were issued almost simultaneously. It is also evident that the nature of allegations in both the proceedings is identical. No specific finding is recorded to the effect that the petitioner had misappropriated any funds. The lapse, if at all, on the part of the petitioner is to place necessary record before the authorities concerned. The order, dated 31.01.2009, is almost ex parte in nature. This Court is of the view that ends of justice would be met if the same is set aside and the petitioner is given an opportunity to submit his explanation within a stipulated time. The interest of the State was already protected in view of the order, dated 03.01.2009, passed by the second respondent. Hence, the writ petition is allowed and the proceedings, dated 31.01.2009, passed by the first respondent are set aside. The petitioner is granted two (2) weeks time from today to submit his explanation. The first respondent shall take the same into account and pass appropriate orders on merits after giving opportunity of being heard to the petitioner. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY,J Dt:09.04.2009 Note: Issue cc in three days. (B/o) kdl