Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 624 (TS)

Kokku Sandhyarani v. State of Telangana

2022-09-27

A.ABHISHEK REDDY

body2022
ORDER : 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, dated 27.06.2022, 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 dated 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, dated 26.02.2021, suspending the proceedings dated 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 dated 07.06.2022 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 dated 21.03.2022 to the show cause notice dated 08.03.2022, 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. 4. Per contra, the learned Government Pleader has vehemently opposed the granting of any relief to the petitioner herein and stated that the suspension is only pending enquiry and no stigma is attached to the said suspension. Hence, the learned counsel prayed to set aside the impugned order. 4. Per contra, the learned Government Pleader has vehemently opposed the granting of any relief to the petitioner herein and stated that the suspension is only pending enquiry and no stigma is attached to the said suspension. That the impugned order was passed strictly in compliance with the provisions of the Telangana Panchayat Raj Act, 2018, duly putting the petitioner on notice and calling for an explanation. The learned Government Pleader has also disputed the fact that the petitioner has not been handed over the charge of the post of Sarpanch pursuant to the interim orders of this Court passed in W.P. No.20879 of 2020 and drawn the attention of the Court to the order passed by the Collector on 19.03.2021 to contend that the petitioner was handed over the charge and the cheque powers were also restored by the authority concerned. 5. A perusal of the record, more particularly, the impugned order as well as the order passed by this Court in W.P. No.20879 of 2020 shows that on the earlier occasion, the petitioner was suspended pending enquiry based on the earlier show cause notice, which was challenged in the said writ petition. This Court vide order dated 26.02.2021 has passed the following order : “Petitioner assails the proceedings No.R1/474/2020-Panchayat Raj dated 19.10.2020 of the second respondent suspending the petitioner from the post of Sarpanch, Mustafanagar Gram Panchayat for a period of six months, in this Writ Petition i.e. from 19.10.2020 to 18.04.2021. The case of the petitioner is that her husband started constructing house and obtained permission subsequently. Pending granting of permission, the present impugned order is passed alleging the said action is main cause of action and also added some baseless allegations which are of trivial in nature. The learned Government Pleader has vehemently opposed on the strength of the counter for misusing of the position of the petitioner by her husband. Counter affidavit is filed. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader. A fair reading of the impugned proceedings clearly indicates that there is a specific allegation against the husband of the petitioner that he is constructing house without obtaining any permission. Counter affidavit is filed. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader. A fair reading of the impugned proceedings clearly indicates that there is a specific allegation against the husband of the petitioner that he is constructing house without obtaining any permission. However, with regard to the other allegation that the husband of the petitioner is interfering with the office of the petitioner (sarpanch) and misusing the office is a bald allegation without there being any specific instances. However, the suspension period is only for a period of six months, which comes to end by 18.4.2021. It is further needless to observe that for any action committed by the husband of the petitioner, the petitioner cannot be penalized. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the husband of the petitioner has obtained permission from the Gram Panchayat for construction of the house on 23.01.2021 and since the petitioner has already undergone considerable period of suspension, this Writ Petition is allowed setting aside the impugned proceedings. Accordingly, there shall be interim suspension of the proceedings No.R1/474/2020-Panchayat Raj dated 19.10.2020 of the second respondent.” 6. Even though it is the specific case of the petitioner that in spite of the interim order of this Court, extracted above, the petitioner was not allowed to discharge her duties as Sarpanch, but the proceedings of the District Collector, dated 19.03.2021, shows that the petitioner was allowed to continue as Sarpanch until further orders and even the cheque power was also restored to the petitioner herein. Hence, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the interim order of this Court dated 06.02.2021 was not implemented may not be correct. 7. The other contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that enquiry report, based on which the impugned order has been passed, was not furnished to the petitioner. A perusal of the impugned order reveals that the Collector based on the enquiry report No.A1/Enquiry/2022-Pancha, dated 03.03.2022, submitted by the District Panchayat Officer, has suspended the petitioner. The perusal of the show cause notice does not show that the petitioner has been served with the enquiry report. Moreover, as seen from the record, the enquiry which was initiated earlier by the authorities concerned has not been concluded till date. 8. The perusal of the show cause notice does not show that the petitioner has been served with the enquiry report. Moreover, as seen from the record, the enquiry which was initiated earlier by the authorities concerned has not been concluded till date. 8. Further, in the impugned order, except stating that the explanation submitted by the petitioner is not satisfactory, no other reasons are given by the Collector for not considering/ believing the explanation submitted by the petitioner. Even though the petitioner has submitted her explanation dated 21.03.2022, which runs into 10 pages, to the Collector, the Collector has not adverted to any of the reasons or grounds mentioned in the said explanation in the impugned order. 9. In A. Janardhan Reddy vs. Mansing, APLJ 1988 (1) (HC), a learned Single Judge of Hon’ble High Court of Judicature of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad, at para 8, held as under : “8. The revenue authorities are bound to go into the question of extent of holding and pass a judicial order before entering details in any prescribed form such as Form No.1. The revenue authorities must be aware that their orders are liable to challenge in the High Court and that unless they are the detailed orders passed in a judicious manner, setting out the facts of the case, the contentions of the parties, the points arising in the case and the findings thereupon, the orders will be liable to be set aside.” 10. In Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Tax Department, Works Contract and Leasing, Kota vs. Shukla and Brothers, (2010) 4 SCC 785 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under : “…. while exercising the power of judicial review on administrative action and more particularly the judgment of courts in appeal before the higher court, providing of reasons can never be dispensed with. ………… and lastly, the authority concerned must apply its mind and dispose of the matter by a reasoned or speaking order …. …. A litigant who approaches the court with any grievance in accordance with law is entitled to know the reasons for grant or rejection of his prayer. Reasons are the soul of orders. Non-recording of reasons could lead to dual infirmities; firstly, it may cause prejudice to the affected party and secondly, more particularly, hamper the proper administration of justice. …. A litigant who approaches the court with any grievance in accordance with law is entitled to know the reasons for grant or rejection of his prayer. Reasons are the soul of orders. Non-recording of reasons could lead to dual infirmities; firstly, it may cause prejudice to the affected party and secondly, more particularly, hamper the proper administration of justice. These principles are not only applicable to administrative or executive actions, but they apply with equal force and, in fact, with a greater degree of precision to judicial pronouncements. The orders of the court must reflect what weighed with the court in granting or declining the relief claimed by the applicant.” 10. For the afore-stated reasons and in view of the law laid down by this Court as well as the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the above referred judgments, the impugned order, dated 27.06.2022, issued by respondent No.2 is set aside and the matter is remanded back to respondent No.2-The District Collector (Panchayat Raj Division) for passing orders, afresh, duly taking into consideration the explanation dated 21.03.2022 submitted by the petitioner, as expeditiously as possible, preferably, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is needless to mention that before passing any orders, the petitioner shall be put on notice and afforded an opportunity of hearing. In case, the respondent No.2 is relying on any enquiry report, the same shall be furnished to the petitioner well before the date of hearing. 11. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed. 12. The miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.