V. SATYANARAYANA GOUD Vs. STATE OF TELANGANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ORDER dated 26.02.2016 passed by the 3rd respondent suspending the cheque drawing power of the petitioner pending enquiry is under challenge in this writ petition.

(2.) IT is the specific contention of Sri T. Sujan Kumar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, that as per Rule 42 of the Rules Relating to Certain Taxes and Other Lodging of Moneys Received by the Gram Panchayat and Payment of Money from the Gram Panchayat Fund (for short 'the Rules'), issued under G.O.Ms. No. 30 dated 20.01.1995, a time limit has to be specified for withdrawal of cheque power. To buttress his contention he placed reliance on a judgment of this Court in Somagani Venkata Subbamma Vs. District Panchayat Officer, Krishna District and another, (2006) 4 ALD 1. It is contended by the learned counsel that in the case on hand while issuing show cause notice on 26.02.2016 simultaneously the cheque drawing power also was withdrawn from the petitioner and entrusted the same in favour of the Panchayat Secretary without specifying any time limit, in violation of Rule 42. The learned counsel also submits that the petitioner submitted his explanation on 11.03.2016 to the show cause notice, but no orders have been passed as on today thereby jeopardising the rights conferred on the petitioner.

(3.) ON the other hand, learned Standing Counsel Sri G. Narender Reddy appearing for the 4th respondent and learned Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj appearing for respondents 1 to 3 would submit that second proviso to Rule 42(1) of the Rules provides for suspension pending enquiry. Both the learned counsel submit that as against the order passed by the District Panchayat Officer appeal lies to the District Collector under Rule 42 (2) of the Rules thereby the writ petition does not deserve consideration.