KOKKU SANDHYARANI Vs. STATE OF TELANGANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj appearing for respondents 1 to 4, and Sri M. Ramgopal Rao, learned Standing Counsel for Gram Panchayat, appearing for respondent No.5. With their consent, the present Writ Petition is disposed of at the stage of admission.

(2.) Challenging the proceedings No.R2/786/2022-Panchayat Raj, dtd. 27/6/2022, issued by respondent No.2 suspending the petitioner from the post of Sarpanch, Mustafanagar Grampanchayat, Gambhiraopet Mandal, for a period of six months, the present Writ Petition is filed.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that on an earlier occasion, when the petitioner was suspended vide order dtd. 19/10/2020, passed by respondent No.2, the same was challenged before this Court by the petitioner vide Writ Petition No.20879 of 2020 and this Court was pleased to pass an interim order, dtd. 26/2/2021, suspending the proceedings dtd. 19/10/2020. Learned counsel has further stated that the order of the High Court passed in W.P. No.20879 of 2020 was not implemented till date and no charge has been handed over to the petitioner. Thereafter, the present impugned order has been passed on some vague and frivolous grounds. Learned counsel has further stated that grounds on which the petitioner has been suspended are without any cause of action as the petitioner was not handed over the charge of the post of the Sarpanch, pursuant to the interim orders passed by this Court in W.P. No.20879 of 2020. That the impugned order was passed due to political rivalry at the behest of the local MLA. Further it is stated that the enquiry report dtd. 7/6/2022 on which much reliance has been placed by the respondent No.2 to suspend the petitioner has not been furnished to the petitioner. That even though the petitioner has given her explanation dtd. 21/3/2022 to the show cause notice dtd. 8/3/2022, the same has not been considered in proper perspective and in the impugned order except stating that the said explanation is not satisfactory, no other reasons have been given by the concerned. Hence, the learned counsel prayed to set aside the impugned order.