G RAMACHANDRA RAO Vs. GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is seeking to challenge the order in Roc. No. 3730/92/A2 (Pts), dt : 11-6-1992 of the Collector (Panchayat Wing), West Godavari district, the 2nd respondent herein, suspending the petitioner (Sarpanch of Narayanapuram Gram Panchayat, West Godavari district) for a period of three months in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 50 (9) of the A.P. Gram Panchayats Act, 1964. The order of suspension was issued pending enquiry into the various charges against the petitioner. On the same day i.e. 11-6-1992 a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner setting out the charges and calling upon him to submit his explanation against the proposed removal from the office of sarpanch. Questioning the order of suspension, the petitioner filed revision to the Government under Section 232 of the A.P. Gram Panchayats Act. It is stated that the Government declined to grant stay, hence the present writ petition is filed.

(2.) The learned counsel for the petitioner has urged that none of the allegations against the petitioner fall within the pre-conditions required for passing an order of suspension pending enquiry. The learned counsel submits that the alleged irregularities do not amount to wilful omission or violation of the Act or the Rules made thereunder. It is difficult to accept the contention of the learned counsel. According to the charges levelled against the petitioner, it is apparent that the petitioner failed to account for Rozgar Yojana Funds drawn by him. The details of the work and the value of the work executed are mentioned in the show cause notice issued on 11-6-1992. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the estimate of the value of the works executed is wrong and that the allegations are based on wrong appreciation of facts. I do not think that I can go into this question in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. Taking a prima facie view of the matter, the charges are serious enough to warrant suspension and the charges are backed up by relevant details. If the allegations are true, it certainly amounts to abuse of power by the Sarpanch which is one of the grounds mentioned in Section SO (9) for placing the sarpanch under suspension. Moreover, the petitioner has already filed a revision before the Government and the Government has called for the records. In view of the availment of statutory remedy by the petitioner., I am not inclined to interfere with the order of suspension. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that a direction may be given to put back the petitioner in office till the Government dispose of the revision. In the circumstances of the case, I am not inclined to give such a direction. The learned Counsel for the petitioner raised a point relying upon the judgment of Rajasthan High Court in Radheshyam vs. The State of Rajasthan (1) AIR 1985 Rajasthan 65, to the effect that preliminary enquiry should have been made before ordering suspension. But that case is distinguishable because there was a specific Rule in Rajasthan Panchayat Rules which enjoined a preliminary enquiry whereas such a provision is absent in the A.P. Gram Panchayat Act or Rules. What is required under sub-section (9) of Section 50 of the A.P. Gram Panchayat Act is the formation of opinion by the Commissioner on the basis of the report submitted by the District Panchayat Officer. It is clear from the impugned order and the show cause notice issued under Sec. 50 (3) that the action was based upon the enquiry report of the District Panchayat Officer.

(3.) Learned Counsel for the petitioner then contended that in conformity with the principles of natural justice, an opportunity of making representation should have been afforded to the petitioner before placing him under suspension. It is perhaps too late in the day to contend that the principles of natural justice should be imported even in a case of suspension pending enquiry into allegations. There is a long line of authorities in the cases of public servants holding that such notice or hearing is not required to be given before exercising the power of suspension pending enquiry. I do not think that on principle it makes any difference whether the incumbent of the public office is an elected person or a nominated person, so long as the contingency of interim suspension is provided for by the statute. Having regard to the purpose of the provision providing for suspension pending enquiry into the charges, it is futile to contend that a prior notice or hearing should be given to the Sarpanch. The power under Sub-sec. (9) of Section 50 is exercisable where the Commissioner forms a prima facie opinion that the Sarpanch wilfully omitted or refused to carry out or violated the provisions of the Act or the Rules or abused his position or the powers vested in him. The further requirement is that the continuance of the person in office as Sarpanch would be detrimental to the interests of the Gram Panchayat or the inhabitants of the Gram Panchayat. If the Commissioner is required to adopt a quasi-judicial approach or to observe the principles of natural justice, it would defeat the very purpose of interim suspension. The observance of the principles of natural justice will be an antithesis to an urgent action contemplated by Section 50 (9) with a view to avoid detriment to the interests of the Gram Panchayat or its inhabitants. The very case cited by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, far from supporting him, reaffirm the principle that suspension of the Sarpanch can be resorted to without giving show cause notice or hearing to the affected Sarpanch. In Radheyshyam case (1) (supra), S.C. Agarwal, J. made it clear that the suspended Sarpanch can only have a post decisional opportunity of seeking the competent authority to review the order of suspension in the light of the explanation filed with reference to the charges. The judgment of the Full Bench of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in Kashmiri Lal vs. Dy. Commissioner, Sonepat (2) AIR 1980 P & H 209, does not help the petitioner. The Full Bench held that only in a case of suspension pending investigation, enquiry or trial in respect of a criminal offence which has the effect of causing embarassment to the Panch or Sarpanch in the discharge of his functions or involves moral turpitude, that an opportunity of hearing or notice has to be afforded to them. As far as the suspension pending enquiry is concerned, the Full Bench approved the view taken by the Division Bench of the same Court in Suresh Chand vs. Director of Panchayats, Haryana (3) 1979 Pun. LJ 116, wherein a distinction was drawn between sub-section (1) of Section 102 providing for suspensing pending investigation, enquiry or trial of a criminal offence and sub-section (1-A) of Section 102 providing for suspension during enquiry.