*THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 1904 of 2008 % 24.08.2008 Between: Bollepelli Shankar. ..... PETITIONER AND The Govt. of A.P. and others. ...RESPONDENTS ! COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER: Sri M.Srinivas Rao ^ COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENT Nos. 1 to 4: G.P. for Panchayat Raj ^ COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENT No.5: Sri P.Sridhar Rao < Gist: > Head Note: ? CITATIONS: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 1904 of 2008 Between: Bollepelli Shankar S/o.Ramaiah Julapally Gram Panchayat, R/o.H.No.3-67, Julapally Village, Kamanpur Mandal, Karimnagar District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Panchayat Raj Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2 The District Collector (Panchayat Wing) Karimnagar, Karimnagar District. 3 The District Panchayat Officer, Karimnagar, Karimnagar District. 4 The Divisional Panchayat Officer, Peddapally, Karimnagar District. .....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 particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in passing the impugned proceedings No.A6/2625/2007/Pan., dt. 29.01.2008 in suspending the petitioner without considering the explanation submitted by the petitioner contrary to the 4th respondent original Enquiry Report and contrary to the object and guidelines of Sec. 249 (6) of Gram Panchayat's Act is illegal, void and opposed to Articles 14, 19 and 21 of Constitution of India and consequently to direct the respondents not to interfere with the peaceful and lawful functions of the petitioner in discharging Sarpanch Post of Julapally Gram Panchayat, Kamanpur Mandal, Karimnagar District, without due process of law and pass such other order or orders. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.MUMMANENI.SRINIVASA RAO Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ & RURAL DEV. The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 1904 of 2008 ORDER: The petitioner was elected as a Sarpanch of Julapally Gram Panchayat, Kamanpur Mandal, Karimnagar District. On receiving certain allegations as to misappropriation against him, the District Collector, Karimnagar, 2 nd respondent herein, initiated proceedings under Section 249 of the Andhra Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 (for short ‘the Act’). A show cause notice was issued on 01.09.2007, incorporating the allegations and requiring the petitioner to submit his explanation. The petitioner submitted his explanation on 10.09.2007. The remarks of the Divisional Panchayat Oﬃcer were called for and on receipt of the same, the 2nd respondent issued show cause notice, dated 08.12.2007, under sub-Section (6) of Section 249 of the Act. The petitioner submitted his explanation on 27.12.2007. On a of the same, the 2nd respondent passed an order, dated 29.01.2008, placing the petitioner under suspension for a period of three months, under Section (6) of Section 249 of the Act. The same is challenged in this writ petition. It is contended that the step under Section 249(6) can be taken only pending investigation into the charges. He pleads that the charges have already been investigated and there was no occasion for the 2nd respondent to pass the impugned order. Sri M.Srinivas Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the notice contemplated under Section 249(1) of the Act was already issued to the petitioner and the explanation was also submitted. He contends that the necessity to issue show cause notice or to pass orders under Section 249(6) of the Act would arise, if only the investigation into the charges against the Sarpanch is pending. He contends that the investigation has already been concluded, with the submission of explanation by the petitioner and enquiry by the Divisional Panchayat Officer. Learned Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj for respondents 1 to 4 and Sri P.Sridhar Rao, learned counsel for respondent No.5, on the other hand, submit that though there is some defect in the frame of the order, it is speciﬁcally passed in exercise of power under Section 249(6) of the Act. According to them, the period of three months had already elapsed and the jurisdiction of the 2nd respondent to pass final order under Section 249(1) still subsists. There is a meticulous narration of the facts in the impugned order. Mention is made to the show cause notice, dated 01.09.2007, and the explanation submitted by the petitioner on 10.09.2007. That exercise is obviously referable to Section 249(1) of the Act. On receipt of the explanation from the petitioner, the 2nd respondent got the matter veriﬁed through the Divisional Panchayat Oﬃcer, who, in turn, submitted the report on 01.11.2007. If according to the 2nd respondent, the investigation into the charges against the petitioner is concluded, with the submission of the report of the Divisional Panchayat Oﬃcer, dated 01.11.2007, he ought to have passed an order under Section 249(1) of the Act. On the other hand, if any further investigation is contemplated, he ought to have mentioned the same in the show cause notice, dated 08.12.2007, issued under Section 249(6) of the Act. Though that provision is mentioned, it was not indicated that any further investigation is pending. That, however, appears to be an inadvertent lapse. As long as the proceedings were initiated under Section 249(1) of the Act, the mere fact that there is any defect in the order passed under Section 249(6) of the Act would not have the eﬀect of terminating the entire proceedings. The impugned order cannot be sustained, for the reason that it was not mentioned that it is passed pending investigation into the charges against the petitioner. It gives an indication as though the order of suspension is passed almost as a substantive penalty. At any rate, the three (3) months period had since elapsed. Hence, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order is set aside. It is, however, left open to the 2nd respondent to take further steps under Section 249(1) of the Act. There shall be no order as to costs. _________ 24.10.2008 Note: L.R.Copy to be marked. (B/o) JSU ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{KURR} THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 1904 of 2008 Date: 24.10.2008 JSU