S GOVARDHAN REDDY Vs. GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner in this Writ Petition questions the order of the 1 st respondent herein in G.O.Rt. No. 410 dated 22-4-1991 dismissing the appeal preferred by him under sub-section (4) of Section 50 of the Andhra Pradesh Gram Panchayats Act, 1964 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and confirming the order of the 2nd respondent herein in his Proceedings No. A1/2514/1990-Pts.2 dated 24-10-1990 where under the 2nd respondent issued notification in exercise of his powers under sub-section (1) of Section 50 of the Act removing the petitioner from the Office of Sarpanch of Papgal Gram Panchayat in Tadur Mandal of Mahaboobnagar District with immediate effect.

(2.) The 2nd respondent found (i) that the petitioner wilfully avoided production of records of the Gram Panchayat as well as records relating to Jawahar Rozgar Youjana for inspection before the Extension Officer (Panchayats), Bijinapally and District Panchayat Officer, Mahaboobnagar on 18-6-1990 and 21-7-1990 in violation of the instructions issued by the 1st respondent in Memo. No. 4070/Pts.I/1968 dated 16-9-1968 of Panchayat Raj Department; (ii) that he failed to produce the records of the Gram Panchayat for verification in the Office of the District Panchayat Officer, Mahaboobnagar on 9-8-1990 or till 17-8-1990 in spite of acknowledging the notice dated 31-7-1990 of District Panchayat Officer; (iii) that he has drawn a sum of Rs. 52,200/- from out of the funds released under Jawahar Rozgar Youjana and failed to produce the records before the Inspecting Officers to conceal the irregularities committed by him; and (iv) that he has drawn a sum of Rs. 16,475/- from Gram Panchayat funds for the period 5-5-1988 to 5-7-1990 and failed to produce the records of the Gram Panchayat be fore the Inspecting Officers to conceal the irregularities committed by him. In the said notification dated 24-10-1990 , it is observed that show-cause notice No. A1/2514/1990 dated 4-9-1990 was issued to the petitioner and that the petitioner acknowledged the receipt of the said show cause notice on 15-9-1990 and failed to submit his explanation within the time stipulated and that therefore, it was held that the I petitioner had no valid explanation to offer and that the charges framed against him were held proved. Contending that no opportunity was given to submit any explanation and that the removal was in violation of principles of natural justice, the petitioner preferred an appeal under sub-section (4) of Section 50 of the Act before the 1st respondent. Pending the said appeal, the 1st respondent stayed the proceedings of the 2nd respondent until further orders and posted the appeal for hearing on 20-2-1991 and issued notice to the petitioner. The petitioner attended on 20-2-1991 and sought time and the appeal was adjourned to 27-2-1991; on that day the petitioner's Advocate filed Vakalat and sought time; on the next day of adjournment i.e., 4-3-1991 petitioner's counsel sought adjournment once again and as last opportunity, the appeal was adjourned to 12-3-1991 on which day on the petitioner's telegram dated 11-3-1991 requesting adjournment upto 25-3-1991 on the ground that his father expired, the appeal was adjourned to 30-3-1991 finally and the Advocate of the petitioner, who was present was informed that there would be no further adjournment. On 30-3-1991, another Advocate represented the petitioner and reported that he had no instructions from the petitioner. But there was a telegram from the petitioner stating that he was ill and requesting for adjournment once again. The order of the 1st respondent dated 22-4-1991 records that the request for further adjournment was refused because while adjourning the case on 12-3-1991 the petitioner's Advocate was clearly informed that there would be no further adjournment and proceeds as follows:-

(3.) One of the grounds of appeal preferred by the petitioner before the 1st respondent is that the 2nd respondent did not issue the show-cause notice to the petitioner and that without giving any opportunity to explain the allegations, the 2nd respondent passed orders. In paragraph 3 of the affidavit of the petitioner in support of his Writ Petition also, he states "the 2nd respondent, without giving any opportunity of submitting an explanation,has passed orders of removal dated 24-10-1990... ....". In paragraph 3 of the counter affidavit filed by the 2nd respondent, it is stated that the petitioner was issued a show cause notice required under sub-section (3) of Section 50 of the Act in Roc.No.A1/2514/1990-Pts. dated4-9-1990 to show -cause within 30 days from the date of receipt of the said notice on the grounds mentioned in the Annexure appended to the said show-cause notice and that the said show cause notice was acknowledged by the petitioner on 15-9-1990 but that he failed to submit the explanation and that therefore, final orders were passed in proceedings No. A1/2514/ 1990-Pts.2 dated 24-10-1990. The learned Government Pleader produced the records which show that the said show cause notice was served on the petitioner in acknowledgment of which he signed stating "received" with the date 15-9-1990 on a copy of the said show cause notice dated 17-8-1990 and the said copy of the show cause notice was sent by the Extension Officer (Pts.) Bijnapally with a covering letter dated 19-9-1990 addressed to the District Panchayat Officer, Mahaboobnagar. Therefore, the contention of the petitioner that he was not given any opportunity of submitting an explanation by the 2nd respondent before passing orders dated 24-10-1990 removing him, is without any basis. It is not the case of the petitioner that he sought further time for submitting his explanation or that he submitted his explanation and that it was not considered by the 2nd respondent.. He received the said show cause notice on 15-9-1990 and the order of the 2nd respondent removing the petitioner was made on 24-10-1990. Therefore, I am of the view that sub-section (3) of Section 50 of the Act was not contravened by the 2nd respondent in making the said order.