M S RUKMINI Vs. DISTRICT COLLECTOR PTS CHITTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Questioning the notification in Roc. No.78/98-A4(Pts), dated 4-6-1999 issued by the District Collector(Pts), Chittoor, who is the respondent herein, removing the petitioner from the Office of the Sarpanch, Pakala Gram Panchayat, the present writ petition is filed.

(2.) I have gone through the order passed by the respondent removing the petitioner from the Office of the Sarpanch. It is not in dispute that the District Collector is exercising quasi judicial functions under Section 249(1) of the Andhra Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act (for short 'the Act') and he has to pass orders on the information furnished by the Department with reference to the explanation offered by the delinquent, if necessary by giving an opportunity to the effected party to prove his case in person. But, admittedly, in this case, the District Collector called for the report of the Divisional Panchayat Officer and passed the orders on the basis of the findings arrived at by the Divisional Panchayat Officer. It is pertinent to extract paragraph 4 of the impugned order hereunder:

(3.) The Commissioner shall also keep in mind that the allegation made against the petitioner is that she tampered the resolutions made in the meeting after the meeting is over. As per the practice, any resolution passed in the meeting has to be ratified or confirmed in the next meeting of the Gram Panchayat. If the Sarpanch(petitioner herein) has really tampered the records and recorded a resolution behind the back of the members of the Gram Panchayat, the same would not have been confirmed in the next meeting. Therefore, the Commissioner is directed to look into the records carefully and see how far the allegations made against the petitioner are true and pass appropriate orders in the appeal. Any order passed by him should be a speaking order adverting to the contentions raised by the petitioner and if any other person involves in the matter he should also be heard before passing the order.