S SYEDA Vs. COLLECTER GUNTUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Sarpanch of Vinukonda Gram Panchayat was placed under suspension for certain irregularities alleged to have been committed by her in the administration of Gram Panchayat. Appellant, who was Upa- Sarpanch, obviously was asked to take over the charge from the Sarpanch. Appellant was asked to take over the charge in view of the provisions under Section 26 of Andhra Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 (in short 'the Act') and he had been discharging duties of Sarpanch. In the meanwhile, respondent Nos. 2 and 3 approached this Court by way of W.P. No. 14596 of 2004 making grievance as regards non- consideration of their representation dated 15-7-2004 stating that even against the Upa- Sarpanch, there were allegations of certain irregularities committed by him when he had discharged the duties as Sarpanch during the period 1995 to 2001. Therefore, he is not a person fit to be made Sarpanch in-charge including the account books of the Gram Panchayat. Writ Petition of respondents Nos. 2 and 3 was disposed of by this Court, directing the Collector (Panchayat Raj Wing) to consider the representation and pass appropriate orders thereupon.

(2.) The Collector (Panchayat Raj Wing), Guntur, on 27-8-2004 passed the impugned order stating that the orders issued in proceedings dated 29-6-2004 keeping the Upa-Sarpanch as Sarpanch in-charge are set aside pending finalisation of appointment of temporary Sarpanch and pending finalisation of action against Upa-Sarpanch. Order of the Collector further stated that as against Upa-Sarpanch, on 9-7-2003 a show cause notice was issued as to why an amount of Rs. 4,89,314.00 be not recovered from him. The show cause notice dated 9-7-2003 was issued in the background that appellant while acting as Executive Officer in-charge of Vinukonda Gram Panchayat had shown some purchases of material in the record of Gram Panchayat without any resolution of Gram Panchayat authorising him to make such purchases and there was no record to show that the said material was actually delivered to the Gram Panchayat and was utilised for public purpose. As a result of the alleged action, the loss stated to have been caused to the Gram Panchayat is to the tune of Rs. 4,89,314.00. The order impugned in the writ appeal also pointed out that as against the show cause notice dated 9-7-2003, appellant had also filed his reply on 23-7-2003. Without taking into consideration the reply to the show cause notice and without saying anything further, the Collector passed the order impugned in the writ petition setting aside the order appointing the Upa-Sarpanch as Sarpanch in-charge. Learned Single Judge before whom this order was challenged dismissed the writ petition by taking the view that prima facie the Upa-Sarpanch appears to have incurred disqualification as provided under Section 19(2)(i) of the Act, namely that he is in arrears of dues to the Gram Panchayat. Challenge in the appeal is to the said order.

(3.) We have heard learned counsel for the parties. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the order passed by the Collector is not in consonance with law. There is no order passed by the competent authority under the provisions of the Act disqualifying the appellant Upa-Sarpanch to act as Sarpanch in-charge in place of Sarpanch under suspension and debarring him from holding the charge of Sarpanch. Only proceeding pending against Upa- Sarpanch is issuance of show cause notice, which has been followed by appropriate reply by the appellant, but no action has been taken thereafter. Therefore, there is no legal impediment in the appellant discharging the functions of Sarpanch in accordance with the provisions of Section 126 of the Act.