ORDER : C. Praveen Kumar, J. 1. The Petitioner claiming himself to be a public spirited citizen filed the present Public Interest Litigation questioning the inaction of the official Respondents, more particularly, the District Collector and District Panchayat Officer in protecting Mr. M. Janardhan Reddy, Ex-Panchayat Secretary, Tiruchannur Panchayat, who is alleged to have misused public funds to the tune of Rs.33,71,177/-. 2. The averments in the affidavit filed in support of the Public Interest Litigation show that the 2nd Respondent/M.Janardhan Reddy, worked as Panchayat Secretary during the period 2014–2018. In order to help private individuals, the civil works of the panchayat were allotted by the 2nd Respondent to the interested persons, without calling for tenders and following the due process of law. 3. On receipt of complaints, the District Collector directed the Revenue Divisional Officer to conduct an enquiry and submit a report. Pursuant thereto, an enquiry was conducted by the Revenue Divisional Officer, who submitted a report to the District Collector, Chittoor District, referring to the acts of the misuse of funds by the 2nd Respondent. Basing on the said report, which is dated 28.09.2017, the District Collector transferred the 2nd Respondent from Tiruchanur Gram Panchayat to Mudigolam Panchayat, pending finalization of the disciplinary proceedings initiated against him. Later on, 2nd Respondent was reposted to Tiruchanur Gram Panchayat on 12.07.2019. It is further stated that, though, the report of the Revenue Divisional Officer clearly discloses misappropriation of huge amount of money by the 2nd Respondent herein, but for reasons best known, no action has been initiated against him. On the other hand, the 2nd Respondent was reposted to Tiruchanur Gram Panchayat. Having regard to the facts in issue, the Petitioner seeks issuance of Writ of Mandamus for recovery of the amount from 2nd Respondent in view of the report of the Revenue Divisional Officer dated 28.09.2017, and also for appropriate action against the 2nd Respondent. 4. A counter came to be filed on behalf of 1st Respondent disputing the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition. The Principal Secretary to Government, Panchayat Raj & Rural Development Department, A.P. Secretariat, in his affidavit, submits that pursuant to a complaint lodged by Smt. Jamuna and Sri. 4. A counter came to be filed on behalf of 1st Respondent disputing the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition. The Principal Secretary to Government, Panchayat Raj & Rural Development Department, A.P. Secretariat, in his affidavit, submits that pursuant to a complaint lodged by Smt. Jamuna and Sri. C. Sreedhar Reddy, residents of Tiruchanur Gram Panchayat, the District Panchayat Officer, Chittoor District, conducted an enquiry on 07.04.2018, under the instructions of District Collector, and found that due to heavy rains in November 2015, houses in Nakkala Colony got submerged in the flood water causing great inconvenience to the public. Pursuant thereto, drainage works were undertaken and completed and no land has been encroached by private individuals. Finally, the District Panchayat Officer, Chittoor District, concluded stating that there was no violation of rules or misappropriation of funds in construction of the culvert. 5. Being not convinced with the said report, the District Collector, directed Revenue Divisional Officer, Tirupathi, to submit his report on the same issue, who after conducting enquiry and verifying the records, submitted a report stating that there was misuse of Rs.33,71,177/- in the construction of culvert. 6. At this stage, it is also to be noted that, while forwarding the report, the District Panchayat Officer, Chittoor District, requested for initiation of suitable disciplinary action against 2nd Respondent, which made the Commissioner, Panchayat Raj & Rural Development, to direct the District Panchayat Officer, Chittoor District, to submit articles of charge against 2nd Respondent. In reply to the said memo, the District Panchayat Officer, Chittoor District, submitted his remarks on the explanation dated 22.11.2019 given by the 2nd Respondent holding that that the allegations made against the 2nd Respondent are not true. It is further stated in the counter that the District Panchayat Officer in its report, dated 25.11.2019, has finally submitted to the Commissioner, Panchayat Rau & Rural Development, that the actual situation with reference to the connected records, earlier report of the District Panchayat Officer, Chittoor District, may be taken into consideration, as there are no encroachments made and no misappropriation of Gram Panchayat funds. In view of the above, it is said that the allegations made in the PIL are all false. 7. The 3rd Respondent, who is the District Collector, Chittoor District, in his counter, toed in line with what has been stated by the 1st Respondent. In view of the above, it is said that the allegations made in the PIL are all false. 7. The 3rd Respondent, who is the District Collector, Chittoor District, in his counter, toed in line with what has been stated by the 1st Respondent. The contents of the said affidavit are verbatim the same as that of the 1st Respondent. 8. The 4th Respondent, who is the Revenue Divisional Officer of Tirupati Division, while denying the allegations made in the affidavit except to the extent admitted by him, adopts the view taken by Respondent Nos. 1st and 2nd. The counter of the 5th Respondent is also similar to what has been stated by Respondent Nos. 1, 3 & 4. 9. The counter of the 2nd Respondent is to the effect that the allegations made in the report are all false and as the two reports of the District Panchayat Officer show no misappropriation of funds, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 10. Reiterating the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of writ petition, Sri. Narra Srinivasa Rao, learned counsel for the Petitioner would submit that in view of the report of the Revenue Divisional Officer, who conducted an enquiry pursuant to the instructions given by the District Collector, Chittoor District, there is no reason to doubt the same, and, as such, the same can be made the basis to initiate appropriate proceedings against the 2nd Respondent. In other words, his plea is, the officials of the Revenue Department are the right persons to indicate as to whether there was any misuse of funds. 11. The same is opposed by Sri. Y.V. Ravi Prasad, Senior Counsel, appearing for 2nd Respondent, and also by the Government Pleader for Respondent Nos. 1, 3, 4 and 5. 12. From a perusal of the material available on record, it is clear that on a representation/complaint of Smt. Jamuna and Sri. C. Sreedhar Reddy, the District Collector, Chittoor District, directed the District Panchayat Officer, Chittoor District, to conduct an enquiry into the allegations made in the complaint. Pursuant thereto, an enquiry was conducted on 07.04.2018 and a report was submitted stating that, during heavy rains in November 2015, the houses in Nakkala Colony got submerged in flood waters causing great inconvenience to the public. Pursuant thereto, an enquiry was conducted on 07.04.2018 and a report was submitted stating that, during heavy rains in November 2015, the houses in Nakkala Colony got submerged in flood waters causing great inconvenience to the public. Having regard to the circumstances prevailing and as per the instructions of the authorities, drainage work was undertaken, which lead to construction of a culvert, as Nakkala Colony is in a low lying area. A report came to be submitted by District Panchayat Officer, stating that neither there was any violation of rule nor misappropriation of funds in the constructions of culvert. The concluding portion of the report dated 09.04.2018, reads as under: “Hence, all the allegations leveled against Sri.M.Janardhan Reddy, Panchayat Secretary (Grade-I), Tiruchanur Gram Panchayat of Tirupathi Rural Mandal are not proved. Drainage channel poramboke is not encroached. No loss is sustained by constructing diversion channel in the private land. The Sarpanch and the Panchayat Secretary are not utilizing the Gram Panchayat staff to their own purpose. No misappropriation is noticed in the cement road works and vegetable market matter. I submit herewith the statement of Sri. M. Nagaraja Reddy, Panchayat Secretary, drainage channel work details and cement road works details. And also I submit the representation of Nakkala Colony villagers for further action.” 13. Not being satisfied with the report of the District Panchayat Officer, the District Collector, Chittoor District, directed the Revenue Divisional Officer to conduct an enquiry into the allegations made against the 2nd Respondent. On 28.09.2018, the Revenue Divisional Officer, Tirupathi, submitted his report. The relevant portion of the report, reads as under: “From the above, it is clear that, the Panchayat Secretary has deliberately, intentionally proposed for construction of new drain across the land in S. No. 411, 404/2B, 405/2B2 and acted to the benefit of the adjacent ryot. The natural channel was closed and diverted without permission either from the irrigation authorities or revenue authorities. The Panchayat Secretary has made proposals suppressing the fact of existence of natural channel and recommended for construction new CC drain in patta lands for the benefit of the private person even though there is natural channel vested with Government thereby misusing Rs.33,71,177/- of panchayat funds i.e., public money. (in respect of works). Therefore the allegation is held proved against the delinquent officer.” 14. (in respect of works). Therefore the allegation is held proved against the delinquent officer.” 14. Basing on the said report, the 2nd Respondent was transferred from Tiruchanur Gram Panchayat to Mudigolam Panchayat of Irala mandal. 15. At this stage, it is to be noted that the District Panchayat Officer, Chittoor District, in his earlier report requested District Collector, Chittoor District, to initiate disciplinary action against 2nd Respondent. Accordingly, draft articles of charge were called for against 2nd Respondent. Pursuant thereto, a report came to be submitted by District Panchayat Officer, Chittoor District, vide his proceedings, dated 25.11.2019, to the Commissioner, Panchayat Raj & Rural Development, stating that no irregularities were committed in the construction of diversion channel, the channel was not encroached and no funds are misused. He requested to drop further action against 2nd Respondent. The relevant portion of the report reads as under: “The Commissioner, PR & RD in the reference 2nd cited has instructed the DPO, Chittoor, to submit draft article of charges against Sri. M. Janardhan Reddy, Panchayat Secretary (Grade-I), Tiruchanuru Gram Panchayat of Tirupathi Rural Mandal. After perusing the actual position, verifying the records and considering the report of the then DPO, Chittoor submitted in Roc. No. 3009/2017 B(Pts) dated 09.04.2018, I submit that there is no irregularities committed in the construction of diversion channel, the channel is not encroached, no funds are misused and hence I request to drop further action against Sri.M. Janardhan Reddy, Panchayat Secretary (Grade-I), Tiruchanuru Gram Panchayat of Tirupathi Rural Mandal.” 16. Thereafter, the Government of Andhra Pradesh, after considering the reports dated 09.04.2018 and 25.11.2019 dropped further action against 2nd Respondent. The relevant portion of the action taken by the Government, reads as under:- “In view of the above, after considering the reports Dt. 09.04.2018 & Dt. 25.11.2019 of the District Panchayat Officer, Chittoor, further action is hereby dropped against Sri. M. Janardhan Reddy, Panchayat Secretary Grade-I, Tiruchanur Gram Panchayat, Tirupathi Rural mandal, Chittoor District, as the said allegations are not proved.” 17. A reading of the two reports, referred to above, would clearly indicate that there were no acts of misappropriation by the 2nd Respondent, while constructing the culvert. M. Janardhan Reddy, Panchayat Secretary Grade-I, Tiruchanur Gram Panchayat, Tirupathi Rural mandal, Chittoor District, as the said allegations are not proved.” 17. A reading of the two reports, referred to above, would clearly indicate that there were no acts of misappropriation by the 2nd Respondent, while constructing the culvert. As the said culvert came to be constructed under the control and authority of the District Panchayat, much sanctity can be attached to these two reports dated 09.04.2018 and 25.11.2019, which were ultimately looked into by the Government and accepted the same, leading to dropping of charges against the 2nd Respondent. 18. Hence, we see no grounds to accept the request of the Writ Petitioner, as sought for in the Writ Petition. 19. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. 20. All the pending miscellaneous applications; if any, are closed.