YERNENI KUSUMA Vs. GOVERNMENT OF AP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is Sarpanch of Kodada Gram Panchayat, Nalgonda District. Fourth respondent is Upa-Sarpanch. Petitioner was suspended by the District Collector by proceedings dated 23-09-2009 in exercise of powers under Section 249(6) of the Andhra Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 (the Act) for a period of three months. Petitioner preferred an appeal before the Government. By G.O.Rt. No. 1657, PR and RD Department, dated 13-11-2009, the Government confirmed the order of District Collector. Assailing the same, petitioner invoked jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of Constitution of India seeking a writ of Mandamus declaring the order of suspension passed by the District Collector as confirmed by the Government as illegal and arbitrary and contrary to the provisions of the Act.

(2.) The brief fact of the matter is as follows. The office of Sarpanch of Kodada Gram Panchayat is reserved for women. Petitioner was successfully contested in the Election 2006 securing a margin of 7,860 votes. Fourth respondent is Upa Sarpanch and petitioner appears to be at loggerheads. There appears to be attempts on the part of fourth respondent to topple petitioner. He submitted a complaint to the District Collector alleging that petitioner sent land development layouts to the Director of Town Planning (DTCP) ignoring the relevant Rules. The District Panchayat Officer, DPO (third respondent herein) conducted enquiry on 27-06-2009, during which, petitioner pleaded ignorance of compliance with Layout Rules and Guidelines. She also pleaded that she is not responsible as it is a Panchayat Secretary who obtained her signature and sent copies to DTCP for technical approval. At that stage, by proceedings dated 03-07-2009, District Collector restricted cheque drawing powers of petitioner, which were directed to be counter signed by DPO and Divisional Panchayat Officer (DLPO), Miryalaguda. In addition thereto, the District Collector directed the District, Town and Country Planning Officer (District Officer) and DLPO to submit a report. They sent report on 18-07-2009 to the effect that the Sarpanch did not forward the layout proposals to competent authority as required under Andhra Pradesh Gram Panchayat Land Development (Layout and Building) Rules, 2002 (Layout Rules, for brevity) (1) (These rules were promulgated by Government in exercise of powers under Section 268(1) and 268(2)(i)(17) of the Act - vide G.O.Ms. No. 67, dated 20-06-2002), that the Sarpanch allowed the layouts with 20 to 30 feet roads demarcated therein and that 10% land towards Gram Panchayat Development was also allowed to be sold as per information furnished by Sub Registrar Office (SRO).

(3.) It is further case of petitioner that while enclosing a copy of the Joint Report referred to hereinabove, the District Collector issued a show cause notice dated 21.-07-2009 call ing upon petitioner to submit explanation with regard to six charges, within fifteen days as to why she should not be suspended from her post for a period of three months as per Section 249(6) of the Act. Petitioner submitted explanation on 03-09-2009. The same was forwarded to the Joint Committee consisting of District Officer and DLPO. They sent their report vide letter dated 14-09-2009 giving their remarks. Considering the same, the District Collector passed the order dated 23-09-2009 suspending the petitioner for a period of three months. As noticed supra, the petitioner then preferred an appeal. The Government considered the appeal of petitioner and by impugned Government Order, dismissed the appeal.