G SWAMY Vs. CHEETY SULOCHANNA AND ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Appeal, under clause 15 of Letters Patent, is preferred against the order passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.6087 of 2017 dated 14.03.2017. The impleaded 5th respondent in the writ petition is the appellant herein. The 1st respondent herein filed W.P. No.6087 of 2017 seeking a mandamus to declare the action of the District Collector, Siddipet District, in passing the order dated 16.02.2017, under Section 249(6) of the Andhra Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 (for short, 'the Act'), and in suspending the 1st respondent-writ petitioner from the post of Sarpanch of Kothur Gram Panchayat, as illegal and arbitrary.

(2.) Facts, as noted in the order under appeal, are that the 1st respondent-writ petitioner, in reply to the show-cause notice issued by the District Collector on 04.02.2017 (a copy of which the 1st respondent-writ petitioner received on 07.02.2017), submitted her explanation on 14.02.2017; thereafter the District Collector passed an order on 16.02.2017 suspending the 1st respondent-writ petitioner from the office of Sarpanch, for a period of three (3) months, under Section 249(6) of the Act.

(3.) Before the learned Single Judge, the 1st respondent-writ petitioner contended that the order of suspension was arbitrary and illegal; it was contrary to principles of natural justice; without supplying a copy of the report dated 03.02.2017, said to have been submitted by the Panchayat Extension Officer, Siddipet, the petitioner was placed under suspension; in her explanation dated 14.02.2017, the 1st respondent-writ petitioner stated that the records of the Gram Panchayat Office was under the custody of the Panchayat Secretary; and the same was not considered by the District Collector. The 1st respondent-writ petitioner relied on a Division Bench judgment of this Court in D. Sathi Reddy Vs. Commissioner, Panchayat Raj, A.P., Hyderabad and others, 1999 5 ALD 681 . On the other hand it was contended, on behalf of the respondents, that the action taken by the District Collector was strictly in accordance with the provisions of Section 249(6) of the Act; the District Collector had issued the show-cause notice, and had afforded the petitioner an opportunity of filing her explanation thereto; and, therefore, principles of natural justice had been complied with.