Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 1077 (AP)

L. Bhaskara Rao v. State of Andhra Pradesh

2025-09-25

VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA

body2025
ORDER : 1. This writ petition is filed to issue writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondents more particularly 3 and 4 in not admitting/allowing the petitioner to discharge his duties as Sarpanch of Penamaluru Gram Panchayat, in view of completion of conditional three months suspension period through proceedings dated 17.05.2025 as illegal, arbitrary and consequently direct Respondent Nos. 3 & 4 to permit the petitioner to discharge the functions as Sarpanch of Penamaluru Gram Panchayat. 2. The case of the petitioner is that, the petitioner was elected as Sarpanch of Penamaluru Gram Panchayat in the year 2021. On the allegation that the petitioner laid CC road without taking permission from the Irrigation Department, contrary to the guidelines and on ground that the petitioner was involved in financial irregularities, he was suspended from the post of Sarpanch and cheque power was withdrawn, for a period of three months vide proceedings in File No.987916/2025 P-5 dated 17.05.2025. Challenging the proceedings dated 17.05.2025, the present writ petition is filed. 3. During hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, suspension proceedings were issued on 17.05.2025 and even after lapse of three months, no enquiry was conducted and no final orders are passed so far. the petitioner filed an appeal before the first respondent assailing the order of the 4 th respondent dated 17.05.2025 and the same is pending for consideration before the first respondent. Even though an appeal was filed on 28.05.2025 even after lapse of four months period, no orders were passed so far. Hence, for the inaction of the respondents, the petitioner cannot be made liable to be suffered, as such, the petitioner is entitled for continuation as Sarpanch of Penamaluru Gram Panchayat. He further submits that, as per Section 249(6) of the Andhra Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act, 1994, the petitioner cannot be suspended for a period not exceeding three months, pending investigation into the said charges. He contends that as per the proviso to Section 249(6) of the Act, the period of suspension cannot be extended more than three months and the first respondent is competent to extend the period of suspension from time to time, but not by the third respondent. But, so far, the order of suspension is neither extended by the first respondent and nor the orders dated 17.05.2025 were revoked. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled to the relief as prayed for. 4. But, so far, the order of suspension is neither extended by the first respondent and nor the orders dated 17.05.2025 were revoked. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled to the relief as prayed for. 4. On the other hand, learned Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj furnished written instructions issued by the Collector & District Magistrate, Krishna, Machilipatnam dated 21.09.2025, stating that, basing upon the complaint given by Sri M. Badari Narayana, raising certain allegations against the petitioners in laying of CC road in Penamaluru village, without taking permission from the Irrigation Department. It is stated that show cause notices dated 30.08.2023 and 05.07.2024 have been issued to the petitioner and after considering the explanation submitted by him, a final notice under Section 249(6) of the Act, has been issued to him. Further, it is stated that single work was executed by dividing into 12 bits and the payment of Rs.55,25,112/- was also completed, division of such work and executing the work without obtaining prior approvals from the Irrigation Department is against the Rules and the petitioner who worked as Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat during the period was held responsible. The petitioner had committed financial irregularities to a tune of Rs.63,42,912/- while he was holding in-charge Panchayat Secretary and maintained new records without prior permission from the higher authorities. Basing on the above, the petitioner was placed under suspension. The petitioner has filed appeal with the Government and it is pending for consideration. Learned Government Pleader submits that the appellate authority shall consider and dispose of the appeal preferred by the petitioner and requested to pass appropriate orders. 5. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj and perused the material available on record. 6. The petitioner has filed appeal with the Government and it is pending for consideration. Learned Government Pleader submits that the appellate authority shall consider and dispose of the appeal preferred by the petitioner and requested to pass appropriate orders. 5. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj and perused the material available on record. 6. Section 249(6) of the Andhra Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 reads as follows: (6) If the District Collector is of the opinion that a Sarpanch or a Upa-Sarpanch or any member of a Gram Panchayat or the Government are of the opinion that any President or Vice-President or the Chairperson or Vice-Chairperson or any member of a Mandal Praja Parishad or Zilla Praja Parishad wilfully omitted or refused to carry out the orders of Government for the proper working of the concerned local body or abused his position or the powers vested in him, and that the further continuance of such person in office would be detrimental to the interests of the concerned local body or the inhabitants of the Village, Mandal or District, the District Collector or as the case may be, Government may, by order, suspend such Sarpanch or Upa-Sarpanch or President or Vice-President or as the case may be, the Chairperson or Vice-Chairperson or member from office for a period not exceeding three months, pending investigation into the said charges and action thereon under the foregoing provisions of this Section: Provided that no order under this sub-Section shall be passed unless the person concerned has had an opportunity of making a representation against the action proposed: Provided further that it shall be competent for the Government to extend, from time to time, the period of suspension for such further period not exceeding three months; so however that the total period of suspension shall not exceed six months: Provided also that a person suspended under this sub-Section shall not be entitled to exercise the powers and perform the functions attached to his office and shall not be entitled to attend the meetings of the concerned local body except a meeting held for the consideration of a no-confidence motion. 7. 7. On bare reading of Section 249(6) of the Act, it is clear that, the District Collector is the competent authority to suspend any Sarpanch or Upa Sarpanch who misused or abused his powers vested in him and the Government is the competent authority to extend the period of such suspension from time to time, not exceeding three months. So far, the first respondent has neither extended the suspension order dated 17.05.2025 even lapse of one month after completion of three months period nor revoked the suspension order, or passed any order directing the petitioner to resume charge as Sarpanch. Since the appeal preferred by the petitioner is pending before the first respondent, this Court deems it appropriate to direct the first respondent to dispose of the appeal. 8. Therefore, the first respondent herein is directed to dispose of the appeal filed by the petitioner within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Till disposal of the appeal, the petitioner is permitted to discharge his duties as Sarpanch of Penamaluru Gram Panchayat. 9. With the above direction, writ petition is disposed of. No costs. 10. Consequently, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this Writ Petition shall stand closed.