Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 1017 (AP)

Punna Prameela v. Reddimalla Yadagiri

2003-08-11

L.NARASIMHA REDDY

body2003
L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J. ( 1 ) ORDER :this case discloses an instance of a wrong order passed by the 2nd respondent giving rise to several unnecessary proceedings in various Courts. ( 2 ) THE District Collector, Nalgonda through proceedings dated 8. 1,2003 held that the 1st respondent, one R. Yadagiri ceased to be a Member of the Gram Panchayat, jajireddygudem with immediate effect and directed the Mandal Parishad Development officer, Arvapally to lodge a criminal Case against the 1st respondent for recovery of rs. 11,49,101/ -. The basis for this order is said to be that during his tenure as In-charge sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat, the 1st respondent had misappropriated a sum of rs. 11,49,101/- and despite the notice as regards disqualification and recovery of amount, he did not respond. The order is said to have been passed in exercise of power under Sections 18 (2) and 19 (2) (h) (i) of the Andhra Pradesh Panchayat Raj act, 1994 (herein after referred to as the act ). ( 3 ) AGGRIEVED by the order dated 8. 1. 2003, the 1st respondent filed O. P. No. 1 of 2003 in the Court of Junior Civil Judge, at Nakrekal (Full Additional Charge, suryapet ). The petitioner herein who is the sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat and respondent No. 4 in the O. P had filed this civil Revision Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India contending that the o. P. was not maintainable in the Court of junior Civil Judge. According to her, in view of the amendment to the Act carried through Amendment Act 22 of 2002, the proper forum was the District Court and not the Court of Junior Civil Judge. Reliance is placed on Section 22-A of the Act inserted through the said amendment. ( 4 ) HEARD the learned Counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj. Though notice was served upon the 1st respondent, he did not choose to appear in person or through advocate. ( 5 ) THE cause of action for the first respondent to file the O. P. was the order dated 8. 1. 2003 passed by the District collector, the 2nd respondent herein. Though notice was served upon the 1st respondent, he did not choose to appear in person or through advocate. ( 5 ) THE cause of action for the first respondent to file the O. P. was the order dated 8. 1. 2003 passed by the District collector, the 2nd respondent herein. This court would certainly have gone into the question as to whether the O. P. ought to have been filed in the Court of Junior civil Judge or the District Court in view of the amendment to Section 20 and insertion of 22-A in the Act, However, that necessity is obviated on account of the fact that the order dated 8. 1. 2003 itself does not conform to any of the provisions of the act. ( 6 ) IN the order dated 8. 1. 2003, it was observed that the 1st respondent had misappropriated a sum of about 11 lakhs during his tenure as In-charge Sarpanch in two spells i. e. , from 5. 5. 2000 to 13. 9. 2000 and 3. 1. 2001 to 22. 8. 2001. It is averred in the order that steps were taken to recover the said amount under the A. P. Revenue recovery Act. Ultimately, after referring to sections 18 (2) and 19 (2) (h) (i) of the Act, the 3rd respondent had declared that the 1st respondent had ceased to hold the office. He had also authorized the Mandal parishad Development Officer to file a criminal Case for recovery of Rs. l 1,49,101/ -. If at all anything, the order dated 8. 1. 2003 discloses lack of basic knowledge about the provisions of the Act and the scope of criminal proceedings on the part of the 3rd respondent. ( 7 ) SECTION 18 (2) of the Act reads as under:"a person, who having held an office under the Government of India or under the government of any State or under any local authority has been dismissed for corruption or for disloyalty to the State or to the local authority shall be disqualified for a period of five years from the date of such dismissal. " ( 8 ) A bare reading of this provision discloses that the disqualification referred to therein applies to a person who held office under the Government of India or government of State or any local authority and has been dismissed on charges of corruption or for disloyalty to his employer, which can be the State or to the local authority. There is hardly any inkling of doubt that this provision applies only to persons who served as employees under the state or Central Governments or local authority and are dismissed from service for corruption charges. It is just beyond anybody s comprehension as to how an officer of Indian Administrative Service had applied this provision against a person who was elected as a Ward Member of the Gram panchayat and who never held any office under the State or Central Governments or local authority. ( 9 ) OTHER provisions referred to are section 19 (2) (h) and (i) of the Act. They read as under: 19 (2) A person shall be di squalified for being chosen as a member, if on the date fixed for nominations for election, or on the date of nominations for election or on the date of nomination under sub-section (2) of section 16, he is; (h) already a member of the Gram Panchayat whose term of office will not expire before his fresh election can take effect or has already been elected as a member of the gram Panchayat whose terms of office has not yet commenced; (i) in arrears of any dues including the sums surcharged otherwise than in a fiduciary capacity, to the Gram Panchayat up to and inclusive of the previous year, in respect of which a bill or notice has been duly served upon him and the time, if any, specified therein for payment has expired: provided that where any person has paid such dues into the Government treasury or into a bank approved by the Government to the credit of the Gram Panchayat fund and obtained a challan or receipt therefor in token of such payment, he shall not be disqualified to become a member of the Gram panchayat on and from the date of such payment. ( 10 ) THE question of invocation of section 19 (2) (h) does not arise, since it is not even alleged that the 1st respondent is a member of a Gram Panchayat and even during the subsistence of that term he has been elected afresh. Section 19 (2) (i) arises if only a notice was served upon the petitioner as regards payment of arrears of any dues. There are not even allegations to that effect. ( 11 ) SECTION 22 of the Act prescribes the procedure for intimation as to disqualifications and further proceedings to be taken thereon. The power to intimate the disqualifications incurred by a member under sections 17, 18, 19 or 20 of the Act is conferred on the District Panchayat Officer. On receipt of the intimation, the concerned member is entitled to approach the Court for adjudication thereon. Before the amendment, the application was maintainable in the Court of Junior Civil Judge. In view of amendment to Section 22, the proceedings are required to be initiated before the district Court. ( 12 ) THIS exercise would have become necessary if only the District Collector is vested with the power to declare that any member of a Gram Panchayat had ceased to hold the office or to declare that such member had incurred disqualification. Under the scheme of Section 22 of the Act, the District Collector dpes not figure anywhere. ( 12 ) THIS exercise would have become necessary if only the District Collector is vested with the power to declare that any member of a Gram Panchayat had ceased to hold the office or to declare that such member had incurred disqualification. Under the scheme of Section 22 of the Act, the District Collector dpes not figure anywhere. Section 22 (1) of the Act reads as under:"where an allegation is made that any person who is elected as a member of a Gram panchayat is not qualified or has become disqualified under Section 17, Section ,18, section 19 or Section 20 by any voter or authority to the executive authority in writing and executive authority has given intimation of such allegation to the member through the district Panchayat Officer and sueh member disputes the correctness of the allegation so made, or where any member himself entertains any doubt whether or not he has become disqualified under any of those sections, such member or any other member may, and the executive authority, at the direction of the Gram Panchayat or the commissioner shall, within a period of two months from the date on which such intimation is given or doubt is entertained, as the case may be, apply to the District Court having jurisdiction over the area in which the office of the Gram Panchayat is situated for decision". ( 13 ) IT is only the District Panchayat officer that is vested with the power to intimate the disqualifications or, as the case may be, the allegations leading there to. Without even verifying the scope of the relevant provisions, the 2nd respondent has chosen to pass the order dated 8-1-2003. ( 14 ) A further astonishing feature is that the 2nd respondent authorized the Mandal parishad Development Officer to lodge the Criminal Case against him (the member) for recovery of Rs. 11,49,101/- from him in the concerned Police Station and report compliance within a week". This unfortunately is the understanding of the criminal law by the District Magistrate and Collector. It is not known as to how criminal proceedings can be initiated for recovering amounts. Several sentences in the order are not even grammatically correct or sound. Either it is a case of signing a draft put up before him or non-application of mind, on the part of the 2nd respondent. It is not known as to how criminal proceedings can be initiated for recovering amounts. Several sentences in the order are not even grammatically correct or sound. Either it is a case of signing a draft put up before him or non-application of mind, on the part of the 2nd respondent. If this is the type of exercise by the head of administration of a district, the quality of orders from the subordinates can easily be imagined. Viewed from any angle, the proceedings dated 8. 1. 2003 cannot be sustained either on facts or in law. ( 15 ) IT is true that the scope of the revision petition is very limited. However, the order dated 8. 1. 2003 has given rise to the filling of an original petition and thereby this civil revision petition. It is on account of this imperfect exercise, that the persons who is fact commit irregularities go Scot free; and many a time, they get emboldened. But for the lack of proper attention in examining and pursuing the matter in accordance with law, the proceedings would not have been dragged so far. The Civil revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. This Court, in exercise of power conferred thereunder, directs that the order dated 8. 1. 2003 which constituted the cause of action for filing o. P. bet set aside. It is, however, made clear that this order does not preclude the authority competent under the A. P. Panchayat raj Act to initiate proceedings, be it as regards disqualification of the 1st respondent or recovery of amount from him, in accordance with the procedure prescribed by law. ( 16 ) THE Civil Revision Petition is accordingly ordered. No costs.