M.Ravikumar Reddy v. The State Of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. By Its Principal Secretary

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA KODANDA RAM WRIT PETITION No. 14596 OF 2016 O R D E R:

This Writ Petition has been filed seeking a mandamus to declare the proceedings dated 06.04.2016 of the 2nd respondent District Collector, Anantapur, temporarily withdrawing the cheque power of the petitioner, as illegal and arbitrary. The case of the petitioner is that based on the complaint made by some villagers alleging that he, in the capacity of the Sarpanch of Nallacheruvu Gram Panchayat, is misusing the funds, the 3rd respondent Divisional Panchayat Officer (arrayed as the District Panchayat Officer), Anantapur conducted a detailed inquiry and submitted a report for taking further action. The 2nd respondent, vide proceedings impugned, while directing the petitioner to show cause, has withdrawn the cheque powers available to him, in exercise of the power under Rule 42(1) of G.O.Ms.No. 30, dated 20.01.1995.

The SubTreasury Officer, Kadiri, Branch Managers, State Bank, Andhra Pragathi Grameena Bank, Syndicate Bank, Kadiri were also requested not to honour the cheques and bills presented by the Sarpanch, Nallacheruvu Gram Panchayat, until further orders. Pursuant to the said notice, the petitioner claims to have submitted an explanation. Thereafter, the 2nd respondent neither conducted inquiry nor passed any further orders, is the basis for filing this Writ Petition. Sri K. Rathangapani Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that Rule 42(1) of G.O.Ms.No. 30, dated 20.01.1995 mandates that prohibition to draw the moneys of the gram panchayat should be for such period, as may be specified in such order, but it cannot be for an indefinite period.

To fortify his contention, the learned counsel places reliance upon Somagani Venkata Subbamma v. District Panchayat Officer, Krishna District[1].

expeditiously, in terms of Rule 42.

Learned Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj (Andhra Pradesh) submits that the order impugned was passed withdrawing the cheque power of the petitioner, pending inquiry, hence, it cannot be said that it is violative of Rule 42(1)of GO.Ms.No. 30, dated 20.01.1995.

I n Somagani Venkata Subbamma's case (cited supra,), the petitioner was permanently prohibited from drawing monies of the gram panchayat, whereas, in the instant case, the cheque power of the petitioner was suspended for a temporary period. Hence, it can safely be said that the ratio laid down in the above judgment does not apply to the facts of the present case.

However, having considered the rival submissions and having taken into account and consideration the purport of Rule 42(1), which clearly mandates that suspension should be for a specified period and also in view of the fact that the petitioner has already submitted his explanation, this Court is of the opinion that ends of justice would be better served if the 2nd respondent is directed to complete the inquiry, after providing an opportunity of hearing, as required under the 1st proviso to Rule 42(1), and pass orders considered appropriate. Ordered accordingly. Such exercise shall be completed within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. With this, the Writ Petition stands disposed of. No costs. Consequently, the miscellaneous Applications, if any shall stand disposed of.

------------------------------------ CHALLA KODANDA RAM, J 28th June 2016 ksld [1] 2006(4) ALD 1