Judgment : I have heard Sri C. Raghu, learned counsel for the petitioner; the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj appearing for the official respondents and Sri Bomma Reddy Sanjeeva Reddy, the impleaded respondent, who appeared as party-in-person. The petitioner is an Ex-Sarpanch of Pamarru Gram Panchayat during the year 20012006. Respondent Nos.1 to 4 have initiated proceedings against her for recovery of Gram Panchayat funds and SGRY and Swajaladhara funds. Two separate show-cause notices were issued to her. When a distraint order was issued against the petitioner on 25.08.2007, she has filed W.P.No.18869 of 2007. This Court allowed the said writ petition by order, dated 18.02.2011, wherein it was held that as no enquiry was contemplated under Section 265 of the A.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 (for short ‘the Act’), the very initiation of the proceedings under the Revenue Recovery Act, 1864 (for short ‘the Revenue Recovery Act’) was unsustainable. Accordingly, the distraint order was set aside leaving the official respondents with the freedom to recover the amounts, if any, found due after following the procedure contemplated in law and after giving opportunity to the petitioner to submit explanation. Thereafter, respondent No.2 has initiated proceedings by issuing two separate show-cause notices one vide Roc.No.1221/2006, Pts.4, dated 07.10.2011, wherein an allegation was made by him that the petitioner has misappropriated Gram Panchayat SGRY funds of Rs.1,05,198/- and Swajaladara funds of Rs.2,51,667/- and the petitioner was asked to submit her explanation as to why the said amount shall not be recovered from her. By another proceedings in Roc.No.2975/2002, Pts.4, dated 07.10.2011, respondent No.2 issued another show-cause notice, wherein the petitioner was asked to show cause why a sum of Rs.45,59,124/-, which was allegedly misappropriated by her, should not be recovered from her. The petitioner has given her reply, dated 04.11.2011, which is stated to be a common reply to both the show-cause notices. On the ground that no orders were passed by the official respondents, the impleaded respondent appeared to have approached the A.P. Lokayukta. After receipt of the notices from the Lokayukta, respondent No.2 passed two separate orders on 03.10.2012 and 29.11.2012. A perusal of these two orders would show that respondent No.2 has not passed final orders adjudicating on the petitioner’s liability in connection with the two show-cause notices issued by him. After receipt of the notices from the Lokayukta, respondent No.2 passed two separate orders on 03.10.2012 and 29.11.2012. A perusal of these two orders would show that respondent No.2 has not passed final orders adjudicating on the petitioner’s liability in connection with the two show-cause notices issued by him. On the contrary, after noting the facts leading to the issuance of show-cause notices and the petitioner submitting her explanation, dated 04.11.2011, respondent No.2 in his order, dated 29.11.2012, authorised filing of a criminal case against the petitioner under Sections 271-A and 136 of the Act. As regards another show-cause notice, dated 07.10.2011, in respect of which a separate order was passed on 03.10.2012, respondent No.2 has noted that as the petitioner failed to pay the misappropriated amount so far, he has authorised respondent No.4 to recover a sum of Rs.3,39,926/-. Following the said direction, respondent No.4 issued demand notice, dated 26.10.2012, under the Revenue Recovery Act. These proceedings are under challenge in these two writ petitions. Under sub-section (1) of Section 265 of the Act, the Commissioner (District Collector is delegated with the power of the Commissioner) is empowered to pass an order in writing directing any person including the Sarpanch, Upa-Sarpanch etc., to pay the Gram Panchayat, Mandal Parishad, as the case may be, the amount misappropriated by such office holders. Under sub-section (2) thereof, if the amount is not so paid, the Commissioner shall cause it to be recovered as arrears of land revenue and credited to the fund of the Gram Panchayat, Mandal Parishad or as the case may be. Section 136 of the Act envisages persons who are entitled to prosecute. Section 271A of the Act envisages penalties for not handing over documents, moneys etc., to the newly elected Sarpanch or Upa-Sarpanch of a Gram Panchayat. As noted hereinbefore, respondent No.2 has passed the impugned orders at the stage where he has issued show-cause notices and received the explanation from the petitioner. It is not the pleaded case of either the official respondents or the private respondent that orders following the show-cause notices issued under Section 265 of the Act were passed by respondent No.3. Unless the petitioner’s liability is determined under Section 265 of the Act, respondent No.2 cannot direct initiation of proceedings under the Revenue Recovery Act or the invocation of provisions of Section 271-A of the Act. Unless the petitioner’s liability is determined under Section 265 of the Act, respondent No.2 cannot direct initiation of proceedings under the Revenue Recovery Act or the invocation of provisions of Section 271-A of the Act. In my opinion, the sine qua non for initiation of proceedings both for recovery of the money and prosecution is prior determination of the liability of the petitioner. The facts of these cases would reveal that having issued the show-cause notices and received the explanation, respondent No.2 was rest content without passing final orders under Section 265 of the Act. When the impleaded respondent approached the A.P. Lokayukta and on receipt of notices from it, respondent No.2 has moved swiftly as if to save his skin without being conscious of the fact that he has not passed the final orders on the show-cause notices issued by him and hurriedly passed the two orders referred to above directing initiation of prosecution and also recovery of the amounts under the Revenue Recovery Act in respect of SGRY and Swajaladhara funds. These acts of respondent No.2 should be perceived as a panic reaction to the proceedings of the A.P. Lokayukta rather than a well contemplated legal action for recovery of the alleged dues from the petitioner. To this extent, the criticism levelled by the impleaded respondent against the official apathy shown towards the petitioner has some justification. In the ultimate analysis, unless respondent No.2 passes final orders determining the petitioner’s liability under Section 265 of the Act, no further steps as directed to be initiated could be taken. Therefore, the impugned proceedings arising in respect of both the show-cause notices issued by respondent No.2 and the follow-up action taken by respondent No.4 for recovery of the alleged dues from the petitioner under the Revenue Recovery Act cannot be sustained in law and they are accordingly set aside. Respondent No.2 is directed to hold a thorough enquiry into the allegations made against the petitioner and after hearing the petitioner in-person or through her counsel, he shall pass speaking orders on the two show-cause notices and communicate the same to the petitioner, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Any further legal action against the petitioner would depend upon the nature of the orders that may be passed by respondent No.2. The writ petitions are accordingly allowed. Any further legal action against the petitioner would depend upon the nature of the orders that may be passed by respondent No.2. The writ petitions are accordingly allowed. As a sequel to disposal of the writ petitions, pending interlocutory applications shall stand disposed of as infructuous.