M HEMASUNDARA KOTESWARA RAO Vs. DISTRICT COLLECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner in this Writ Petition questions the order of the 2nd respondent i.e., Government of Andhra Pradesh in G.O. Rt. No. 1263 dated 26-10-1991 confirming the order of the 1st respondent herein i.e., the District Collector, Guntur in his Roc. No. 4071/90-G1 dated 26-2-1991 and the notification appended thereto issued by him removing the petitioner from the office of the Sarpanch, Ilavaram Gram Panchayat of Bhattiprolu Mandal in Guntur district with effect from 4-4-1991 under sub-sec. (1) of S. 50 of the Andhra Pradesh Gram Panchayats Act, 1964 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').

(2.) The petitioner states that he was elected as Sarpanch of the Ilavaram Gram Panchayat for a period of five years in the elections for the said office held in the month of March, 1988. The State Government allotted a sum of Rs. 1,58,200.00 to the said Gram Panchayat under Jawahar Rozagar Yojana Scheme (hereinafter referred as 'J.R.Y. Scheme') for the year 1989-90 and the said Gram Panchayat passed resolutions for execution of eleven works, with the said J.R.Y. funds. As the said works could not be done through contractors the petitioner had to execute the same personally, and he executed the said works from January, 1990 to July, 1990. He states that though the cost of the said works was estimated on the basis of Standard Scheduled Rates (hereinafter referred to as 'the S.S. Rates') the prevailing market rates for the material and labour involved in the said works was 30% over the relevant S.S. Rates. According to him, he filed a petition dated 10-2-1990 requesting the Deputy Executive Engineer, Repalle to allow 30% over and above the S.S. Rates as the rates of material and wages had gone up and the Deputy Executive Engineer informed him that the Government passed orders in its Memo No. 2759/NREP/III/90-2 dated 20-3-1990 permitting the Chief Engineer, Panchayat Raj Department, to allow up to 10% over and above the S.S. Rates. He represented through petition dated 7-8-1990 to the Chief Engineer, Hyderabad requesting him to allow at least 10% over and above the S.S. Rates. The Chief Engineer directed the Executive Engineer, Tenali to send a detailed report of the estimate of works executed along with a comparative statement of S.S. Rates and market rates duly considering the load involved in the said works. The Deputy Executive Engineer sent a detailed report to the Executive Engineer, Tenali on 27-12-1990 stating that the market rates were in excess of S.S. Rates ranging from 6.7% to 148.96% for the various material and recommending 10% over S.S. Rates. The said report was approved and forwarded by the Executive Engineer, Tenali to the Chief Engineer through the Superintending Engineer, Guntur. Thereafter, the Chief Engineer by letter dated 17-1-1991 informed the petitioner that the Government empowered the Executive Engineer to allow 10% on J.R.Y. Scheme works over the S.S. Rates and that the Superintending Engineer, Guntur was informed to take necessary action in the matter. The petitioner states that though the Executive Engineer, Tenali was required to pass orders formally allowing 10% over and above the S.S. Rates in respect of the works completed by him under the J.R.Y. Scheme, he had not done so.

(3.) The petitioner states that on certain complaints filed by the group opposite to him in the village a show cause notice dated 7-10-1990 was issued to him by the 1st respondent herein stating that he misappropriated J.R.Y. funds. The value of the works done by the petitioner was arrived at as Rs. 1,24,174.00 on the basis of the S.S. Rates and it was alleged that the excess expenditure incurred by him was unaccounted and misappropriated by him. He gave a detailed explanation stating that there would be no excess expenditure or deficit if 10% excess was allowed over and above the S.S. Rates. He states that he remitted a sum of Rs. 24,000.00 on 4-7-1990 after calculating the value of the works done by him to the basis of S.S. Rates plus 10%, even though he incurred an expenditure much than the amount arrived at on that basis. The 1st respondent passed the said order dated 26-2-1991 under S. 50(2) of the Act, holding that he did not file any proof to show that he incurred excess expenditure over and above the S.S. Rates and that he was not entitled for 10% excess rates and that he did not file any petition to allow 10% excess rates over the estimated cost based on S.S. Rates. His appeal to the 2nd respondent was also dismissed. The appellate order of the 2nd respondent dated 26-10-1991 was also mainly based on the ground that he was not entitled for 10% over and above the S.S. Rates as per the said Government memo dated 20-3-1990 as the said Memo was only prospective and on the further ground that he did not produce any order from the Executive Engineer allowing 10% over and above the S.S. Rates.