A. GOPAL REDDY, J. ( 1 ) HEARD the learned counsel for the petitioner and also the Assistant government Pleader appearing for the first respondent. ( 2 ) THE petitioner, who was elected for the post of Sarpanch to the Kothur Gram panchayat, which was reserved for scheduled Caste candidates, was served with a show cause notice dated 14-05-2003 stating why necessary action should not be taken against him on the ground that he had drawn an amount of Rs. 88,307/- under jgsy and adjusted Rs. 55,534/- leaving a balance of Rs. 33,3737- Apart from the same, an amount of Rs. 4,000/- received towards auction of fishery kunta had not been remitted to the Gram Panchayat account, to which, he submitted his explanation on 10-06-2003 denying the allegations made against him. Thereafter, he was placed under suspension by the second respondent-District Collector (Panchayat wing), Adilabad District, through his proceedings dated 15-09-2003. Questioning the same, he filed a revision before the first respondent, who initially granted stay on 02-12-2003, but vacated the stay earlier grated to him based upon the report submitted by the second respondent and accordingly, dismissed the revision vide g. O. Rt. No. 1120, dated 02-08-2004. Questioning the same, the present writ petition is filed. ( 3 ) THIS Court in The Narayanavalasa gram Panchayat, Narasannapeta Taluk, srikakulam District v. The Government of andhra Pradesh, Panchayatraj Department, hyderabad categorically held that once the government entertained the revision and if it decides the same only after calling for the records, no infirmity can be discernible but when a report is called for by the government in pending appeal /revision and based on such report, vacating the stay granted earlier, amounts to violation of principles of natural justice and the same cannot be sustainable. ( 4 ) IN view of the same, the impugned order passed by the first respondent vacating the stay and dismissing the revision/appeal on the report sent by the second respondent is in violation of principles of natural justice. Therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. ( 5 ) IN view of the above, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the first respondent for fresh disposal. Therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. ( 5 ) IN view of the above, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the first respondent for fresh disposal. However, it is open for the first respondent to proceed with the matter after supplying the report to the petitioner and after considering further objections if any, made by the petitioner on the said report. ( 6 ) THE writ petition is accordingly allowed. No costs.