THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI W.P.No.13683 of 2011 Between: 1. R. Maruthi and others PETITIONERS And 1. The State of A.P., rep. by its Department of Panchayat Raj & Rural Development (PTS.II) Department, Secretariat Hyderabad, and others. RESPONDENTS Counsel for the petitioners: Sri Putta Krishna Reddy Counsel for respondents 1 to 3: G.P. for PR & RD Counsel for respondent No.4: Sri G. Shiv Kumar Goud Court made the following ORDER: After hearing the matter at length, this matter is disposed of at this stage with the consent of both the learned counsel. The order of the State Government in G.O.Rt.No.262, Panchayat Raj and Rural Development (PTS.II) Department, dated 22.02.2011 is under challenge at the instance of the Ward Members of the Turkapalli Gram Panchayat. By the said order, the State Government allowed the appeal filed by the 4th respondent preferred against the orders of the 2nd respondent-District Collector, Ranga Reddy District in Proceedings No.482/2009-B2(Pts), dated 19.05.2010 whereunder he has been removed from the office of Sarpanch. A show cause notice dated 5.02.2010 was served on the 4th respondent under Section 249 (1) and 265 of the A.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 (for short ‘the Act’) for his removal and for recovery of Rs.24,82,192/- alleged to have been misappropriated by him. As many as seven charges were framed alleging several financial irregularities besides incurring expenditure without proper approvals and maintenance of records. After receiving the show cause notice, the 4th respondent requested for extension of time to enable him to submit an effective explanation after perusing the connected records. The request was acceded to and time was extended for submitting the explanation. A show cause notice issued in that regard was received by him on 8.03.2010 but he failed to submit his explanation even after granting extension of time. Therefore, the 2nd respondent District Collector, passed orders dated 19.05.2010 in exercise of powers conferred under Section 249(1) of the Act removing the 4th respondent from the office. The misappropriated amount of Rs.24,82,192/- was also directed to be recovered under the provisions of Section 265 of the Act. Aggrieved by the said order, the 4th respondent preferred an appeal under sub-section 7 of Section 249 of the Act to the State Government. The State Government allowed the said appeal by orders in G.O.Rt.No.262, dated 22.02.2011. It is against this order, this writ petition has been filed. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the 4th respondent by misusing his office committed serious financial irregularities besides incurring expenditure without proper approvals and maintenance of records; that he was found to have misappropriated a sum of Rs.24,82,192/- which was directed to be recovered, and therefore, there was no material before the State Government to set aside the said order and restore the 4th respondent to office; that the finding of the 1st respondent that the 4th respondent has in fact remitted the misappropriated amount is factually incorrect; that even if the 4th respondent has remitted a part of the said amount, it does not absolve the 4th respondent of the charge of misappropriation; that the allegations as to the incurring of expenditure without proper approvals and improper maintenance of records stood proved which itself is sufficient for removal of the 4th respondent and that at any rate, the State Government has not assigned any reasons in allowing the appeal and the order being cryptic is liable to be set aside. The learned counsel Sri Srinivas Kapadia representing Sri G. Shiv Kumar Goud, learned counsel for the 4th respondent, on the other hand submits that the 4th respondent was not given adequate opportunity to defend his case before the 2nd respondent-District Collector; that even though a show cause notice was given, he was not given an opportunity to peruse the concerned records in order to submit an effective explanation; that the 4th respondent has incurred necessary expenditure only after obtaining the administrative sanctions and the expenditure is reflected in the concerned records; that the 4th respondent cannot be made liable for improper maintenance of records since the 4th respondent has actually remitted the alleged misappropriated amount of Rs.1,63,099/- on 28.10.2010 and therefore in one of the charges levelled is sustainable; and that the 1st respondent has rightly passed the order and the same is not liable to be interfered. It may be mentioned that the 2nd respondent passed the orders removing the 4th respondent only after a show cause notice was given to him granting sufficient time for submitting his explanation. The 4th respondent failed to utilize the opportunity. On a consideration of the material and the charges levelled, the 2nd respondent ordered removal of the 4th respondent. In the appeal filed by the 4th respondent before the Government even though the 4th respondent allegedly raised all these grounds denying the allegations against him, a perusal of the order shows that the same has not been considered. The relevant portion of the order of the State Government is as follows. “The Government after careful examination of the matter and material available in the records. The appeal petition filed by Sri V. Mallesh, Sarpanch (Removed), Thurkapally Gram Panchayat, Shamirpet Mandal, Ranga Reddy District is allowed by set aside of the orders issued by the District Collector vide reference 1st read above and advised to obtain the required permissions for the orders done from the District Collector. A perusal of the aforesaid order shows that the State Government has not considered the matter adverting to the various allegations made against the 4th respondent and the explanation offered by him. No reasons have been recorded in support of the decision. It is well settled that an order passed by a statutory authority without assigning reasons, is unsustainable in law. In view of the cryptic nature of the aforesaid order, all the learned counsel submit that the matter be remanded to the 1st respondent for reconsideration. For the aforesaid reasons, without expressing any opinion on merits, the impugned order of the State Government in G.O.Rt.No.262 dated 22.02.2011 is set aside and the matter is remanded for reconsideration. The 1st respondent shall consider the matter afresh by giving notice to the petitioners and the 4th respondent as well and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. No costs. _________________ NOUSHAD ALI, J. 19th July, 2011. Note: C.C. in 3 days. (B/o) Js.