Middela Yadi Reddy v. The State Of Telangana

THE HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN AND THE HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE T.RAJANI Writ Appeal No.883 of 2017 JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon'ble the Acting Chief Justice Ramesh Ranganathan) This appeal, under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, is preferred against the order passed by the Learned Single Judge in W.P.No.3414 of 2017 dated 28.06.2017 wherein the 4th respondent in this appeal had questioned the action of the 2nd respondent, in passing the impugned order dated 09.01.2017 removing her from the office of Sarpanch, Bowrampet Gram Panchayat, as being arbitrary and illegal.

In the order under appeal the Learned Single Judge has faulted the District Collector in not framing specific charges, in not furnishing a copy of the report to the Divisional Panchayat Officer to the Sarpanch, and in passing an order without application of mind. After setting aside the order passed by the District Collector, the Learned Single Judge observed that the said order would not preclude the respondent authorities from framing definite charges as per law, and from proceeding further with the matter in accordance with law in the light of the observations made in the order.

A show cause notice was issued to the 4th respondent-writ petitioner on 04.01.2016 alleging misappropriation of funds of the the Gram Panchayat. She was asked to show cause why action should not be taken against her under Section 249(1) of the Panchayat Raj Act, 1994. Sri S.Satyam Reddy, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the 4th respondent-writ petitioner, would contend that a copy of the report of the Divisional Panchayat Officer was not furnished along with the show cause notice; and it is only after repeated requests thereafter, was the 4th respondent-writ petitioner able to obtain a copy of the report of the Divisional Panchayat Officer before she submitted her explanation to the show cause notice on 22.12.2016. The 4th respondent-writ

petitioner had, thereafter, addressed a letter on 30.12.2016 submitting one measurement book bearing No.1350/AH, and had requested time till 03.01.2017 to produce four other measurement books which were said to be in the custody of the concerned Assistant Engineer and Deputy Executive Engineer. While the order of removal passed by the District Collector refers to the 4th respondent-writ petitioner's letter dated 03.01.2017, it is not clear therefrom whether the contents of the measurement books were taken into consideration before holding that measurement books and bills were not submitted for Rs.35,34,054/-. Sri S.

Satyam Reddy, learned Senior Counsel, initially contended that all the records were available with the Divisional Panchayat Officer, and the 4th respondent-writ petitioner cannot therefore be faulted for not producing the books of accounts. The fact, however, remains that, even in her letter dated 22.12.2016, the 4th respondent-writ petitioner did not contend that the files in the custody of the Divisional Panchayat Officer were not made available to her on 20.12.2016. Except for the subsequent letters dated 30.12.2016 and 03.01.2017, wherein reference is made to certain measurement books which were not produced earlier, the 4th respondent-writ petitioner has not complained of any other records not being shown to her.

Enclosed to the order dated 09.01.2017, whereby the 4th respondent-writ petitioner was called upon to pay Rs.35,34,054/-, is a statement containing details of the expenditure for which documentary evidence had not been furnished by the 4th respondent-writ petitioner. Sri S.Satyam Reddy, learned Senior Counsel, would submit that the records for the entire expenditure of Rs.35,34,054/- are available and, if only the 4th respondent-writ petitioner had been afforded an opportunity of furnishing these details, she would have furnished the said information to the District Collector.

The impugned order passed by the District Collector does not even state that the entire records, including the measurement books, were examined by him before holding that the unaccounted expenditure was Rs.35,34,054/- as against the unaccounted expenditure, reflected in the report of the Divisional Panchayat Officer, of Rs.2,05,14,386/-. We consider it appropriate, therefore, to direct the District Collector to give the 4th respondent-writ petitioner an opportunity of explaining the manner in which the expenditure of Rs.35,34,054/- was incurred, and to submit the relevant records such as invoices, measurement books etc, as proof of such expenditure having been actually incurred by her.

While we see no reason to interfere with the order of the Learned Single Judge to the extent the impugned order of removal was set aside, we consider it appropriate that, in the light of the allegations of misappropriation, the District Collector should enquire into these allegations with utmost expedition, and take a decision after giving the 4th respondent-writ petitioner a reasonable opportunity of being heard. The entire exercise, culminating in the decision being taken by the District Collector and being communicated to the 4th respondent-writ petitioner, shall be completed within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

The Writ Appeal stands disposed of accordingly. Miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any, shall also stand disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

_________________________________ (RAMESH RANGANATHAN, ACJ) __________________________ (T.RAJANI, J) 26th July, 2017 JSU

THE HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN AND THE HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE T.RAJANI Writ Appeal No.883 of 2017 Date: 26.07.2017 JSU