THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.8209 of 2008 ORDER: The petitioner was elected as a Sarpanch of Tripuraram Gram Panchayat, Nalgonda District in the year 2006, which is reserved for scheduled tribes. Two notices were issued by the District Collector, Panchayat Raj Wing, Nalgonda District, the second respondent herein, on 05.09.2007, requiring the petitioner to explain as to why necessary steps be not taken in accordance with law under Section 249 of the A.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 (for short ‘the Act’). On the same day, the District Panchayat Officer, the third respondent therein, had taken away the cheque drawing powers of the petitioner. The petitioner submitted his explanation on 22.09.2007. After calling for the report from the third respondent, the second respondent passed an order, dated 22.10.2007, directing removal of the petitioner from the Office of Sarpanch. The same was challenged by the petitioner in a revision before the first respondent. The revision was dismissed vide orders in G.O.Rt.No.567, Panchayat Raj & Rural Development (PTS.II) Department, dated 08.04.2008. Hence, this writ petition. Sri D.Prakash Reddy, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner, submits that the very allegation against the petitioner was that he did not maintain vouchers and stock registers in respect of certain items and though it was proved that the vouchers are presented and stock registers are maintained, the order of removal was passed on a different ground. He further submits that this is a case where extraneous factors were taken into account and the petitioner was removed from the elected office. The learned Senior Counsel also submits that the second respondent has travelled beyond the scope of the charges framed against the petitioner and it is alleged that the first respondent did not examine the matter from the correct perspective. The learned Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj and the learned Standing Counsel for the fifth respondent, on the other hand, submit that the petitioner had resorted to large-scale financial irregularities and the impugned orders were passed after a detailed consideration of the explanation and verification of the relevant records. Ever since the notices were issued to the petitioner alleging certain irregularities, he approached this Court on number of occasions. The writ petitions were disposed of, leaving it open to the petitioner to have recourse to the remedies provided for under the Act and the Rules made thereunder. Ultimately, the second respondent passed an order, dated 22.10.2007, directing removal of the petitioner from the Office of the Sarpanch and the same was affirmed in a revision before the first respondent. The scope of interference with the matters of this nature in a writ petition is very limited. This Court would only examine the decision making process, than the decision itself. Having regard to the fact that the removal of an elected Sarpanch would have the effect of overturning the popular mandate, it must be ensured that the correct procedure has been followed and the matter is determined in an objective manner. The first charge against the petitioner was in respect of eight items, ranging from purchase of stationary to provision of uniforms to the employees. It was alleged that he did not maintain vouchers and stock registers for the said items. The amount involved was about Rs.2,40,000/-. In his explanation, the petitioner stated that he maintained vouchers for each and every transaction, and that every item purchased by the Gram Panchayat during this tenure was entered in the stock register. After verification of the relevant record, the Divisional Panchayat Officer, Miryalaguda, the fourth respondent herein, reported that the petitioner maintained vouchers and stock registers for the items mentioned in charge No.1. However, he made an observation to the effect that it is not clear as to where and how, the material so purchased, was utilized. The finding of the second respondent is to the effect that the petitioner did submit vouchers and stock registers for the items mentioned in charge No.1. However, on the ground that the petitioner did not mention as to how and where the material purchased was utilized, the charge was held proved. When the charge is only as regards non-maintenance of vouchers and registers and when no allegation was made as to the method of utilization of material, the finding of the second respondent is prone to be perverse. A disciplinary authority cannot travel beyond the scope of the charge, nor can a person facing enquiry be held guilty of something which was not alleged against him. In the second charge, it was alleged that the petitioner has drawn Rs.2,03,547 and Rs.1,02,320/- for certain works, but did not submit the Measurement Books (MBs.) and thereby, he has misappropriated the funds. In his explanation, the petitioner submitted the details and the particulars of MBs for the works undertaken by him. The fourth respondent also certified that the MBs were submitted. However, it was observed that the funds were utilized not for any developmental works and they were used for extension of pipe lines and repair of motors. This observation weighed with the second respondent and the charge was held proved. Here again, the finding is contrary to the very scope of charge. In the third charge, the second respondent alleged that the petitioner has drawn Rs.50,239/- from S.F.C. funds, but has not submitted any MBs. The fourth respondent reported that the petitioner had remitted the said amount. The explanation was accepted and even the second respondent had dropped the charge. From the above discussion, it becomes clear that the second respondent has taken certain aspects beyond the scope of charge into account, and removed the petitioner from the Office of the Sarpanch. This Court is of the view that the matter needs reconsideration with specific reference to the content of the charge and explanation offered by the petitioner. In the ordinary course, the petitioner were to have been reinstated into the Office. However, it is felt that he may be required to be out of Office till the matter is reconsidered by the second respondent, having regard to the nature of allegations, involving huge funds. Therefore, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned orders are set aside. The matter is remanded to the second respondent for fresh consideration and disposal and the second respondent shall confine his consideration strictly to the charges framed against the petitioner and the explanation offered by him. No other factors shall be taken into account. The matter shall be disposed of within a period of six weeks from today. In case, the charges are dropped, the petitioner shall be reinstated into office, at once. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY,J Dt:25.02.2009 Note: Registry is directed to dispatch the copy immediately. (B/o) kdl