E. PRAKASHAM Vs. STATE OF TELANGANA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Order dated 17.02.2018 passed by the 2nd respondent - District Collector (Panchayat Wing), Warangal Rural suspending the petitioner from the post of Sarpanch of the 4th respondent Gram Panchayat, is challenged in this Writ Petition.

(2.) The petitioner, who claimed to be a candidate belonging to Scheduled Castes category, asserts that he was elected as the Sarpanch of Alankanipet Gram Panchayat during general elections held in July 2013. He further asserts that he belongs to Telugu Desam Party. While so, after formation of Government by TRS party, on the ground that he is not acting in tune with the ruling party, to create some troubles, various steps were taken at the instance of the rival members and in that process, on an earlier occasion, F.I.R. No. 85 of 2017 was lodged against the petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 353, 390, 323 and 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and he was arrested and remanded to judicial custody in connection therewith. The petitioner was therefore, issued the show cause notice dated 15.07.2017, to which he submitted a detailed explanation on 25.07.2017, enumerating various works, which he had undertaken. Without considering the said explanation, when orders were made in August 2017, suspending the petitioner as Sarpanch, for three months, he filed Writ Petition No. 26646 of 2017, wherein this Court, vide order dated 11.08.2017, suspended the impugned order, but however, directed that the enquiry initiated against him should go on. By virtue of the said order dated 11.08.2017, he was continuing as Sarpanch, claims the 2 petitioner. However, again, he received a show cause notice on 112017 under Section 249(1) of the Telangana Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 (for short, 'the Act'), for which he submitted a detailed explanation on 20.12017. While that be so, the petitioner received another show cause notice dated 30.01.2018 under Section 249(1) or (6) of the Act as to why action should not be initiated for suspending him, as he was arrested on the allegations of obstructing the EO (PR & RD), Nekkonda from discharging his official duties. He submitted the explanation on 06.02018 denying the allegations, but however, without considering the said explanation, referring the same allegations, the impugned order was passed on 17.02018, invoking the power under Sections 249(6) and 258 of the Act. The Writ Petition is filed questioning the said order dated 17.02018 on the ground that the alleged involvement of the petitioner in a criminal case and his arrest in connection therewith is unsustainable and that the service rules relating to public servants/government servants are not applicable to the elected posts like Sarpanch and that there is no provision under the 1994 Act extending the service rules/regulations to the said posts. It is further urged that the reference made to Section 258 of the Act is misconceived and the same has no application.

(3.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj for Respondents 1 to 3, learned Standing Counsel for the 4th respondent and learned counsel for the 5th respondent caveator.