ANANTHA RAO DESHPANDE Vs. STATE OF TELANGANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this writ petition, petitioner prays for declaring the order dated 21.07.2020 passed by respondent No.2-District Collector, Nizamabad, suspending him from the Office of Sarpanch, Pochampally Gram Panchayat, Velpur Mandal, Nizamabad District, as illegal, null and void and contrary to the provisions of the Telangana Panchayat Raj Act, 2018 (for short 'the Act'), and consequently, direct the respondents to continue him as Sarpanch.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the omissions and commissions on the part of the petitioner, as alleged in the show cause notice, are trivial in nature; that the petitioner having been elected as Sarpanch for the first time, not being aware of the niceties of the procedural aspects with regard to conducting of the Office of the Sarpanch, committed some lapse in complying with the procedural aspects; that a detailed explanation submitted by him to the show cause notice was not considered in proper perspective, more particularly, with regard to maintenance of records, responsibility, of which, is of the Panchayat Secretary but not the Sarpanch and that there is no allegation levelled against the petitioner with regard to misappropriation or misuse of funds and the petitioner had not conducted the affairs of the Panchayat efficiently. He further contends that no charges were framed against the petitioner invoking Section 37(1) of the Act, as such, the order impugned suspending him from the Office of Sarpanch pending enquiry under Section 37(5) of the Act is unauthorized and ultra vires. In support of his contention, he has placed reliance on the judgment in Yerneni Kusuma Vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh 2010 (6) ALD 737 == , wherein, this Court while considering the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act, 1994, more particularly Section 249 thereof, which is in pari materia with Section 37, held that it is only in the process of enquiry initiated under Section 249(2), action could be taken under Section 249(6). He has also placed reliance on the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Madasu Ravi Vs. State of Telangana 2018 (5) ALD 235 DB as well as the order dated 09.02.2010 passed by this Court in W.P.No.24320 of 2009.

(3.) On the other hand, learned Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj and Rural Development appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 3, while placing reliance on the judgments in Janagama Shankaraiah Vs. Government of A.P. and others 2011 (1) ALD 251 and M.Kavitha Vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh and others 2010 (5) ALD 750, would submit that the order of this Court in W.P.No.24320 of 2009, referred to by the learned counsel for the petitioner, was distinguished in the judgment in Janagama Shankaraiah (3 supra). He would further submit that as against the impugned order, there is a remedy of Appeal available to the petitioner under Section 141 of the Act. He would also submit that enquiry has been initiated under Section 37(1) of the Act and suspension is only pending investigation, hence, the impugned order does not call for interference by this Court.