A quasi-judicial appellate authority or tribunal should not consult or consider any other opinion or view of either the District Collector or any other authority while exercising its appellate powers.

( 1 ) THIS appeal gives rise to a short and important question of law relating to the exercise of power by the State Government while disposing of an appeal under S. 50 (4) of the Gram Panchayats Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act), against an order of the District Collector, dismissing a Sarpanch on charges of misappropriation. In order to appreciate the scope of the question, it is necessary to state briefly the facts.

( 2 ) THE appellant was removed from the office of the Sarpanch with effect from 1-12-76 by the District Collector, Guntur by his proceedings dated 18-11-76 for certain irregularities committed by him in the administration of the Gram Panchayat. Some charged relate to miss-appropriation of the Panchajats funds while the appellant was in the office as Sarpanch. The appellant preferred an appeal to the State Government under S. 50 (4) of the Act on 26-12-76. The Government called for para-wise remarks on the appeal memo from the same District Collector against whose order the appeal was preferred. The District Collector submitted his para-wise remarks along with a report on 17-2-77. The State Government by its order in G. O. Ms. No. 403 dated 11-5-77 dismissed the appeal preferred by the appellant. It is evident from the order of the Government that the appeal preferred by the appellant was examined "with reference to the records and report of the Collector, Guntur. " (See para 3 of the G. O. ). The correctness of this order was challenged by the appellant in this court in W. P. No. 1298/77. Before the learned single Judge it was contended that the Government has not exercised its jurisdiction in accordance with law; that it was not competent and open to the State Government to call for para-wise remarks or report from the District Collector which amount to consultation and therefore the appellate order was violative of the rules of natural justice and also illegal as the Government has not exercised its jurisdiction in accordance with law. This plea of the appellant was not accepted by the single Judge, holding that no fresh material has been submitted by the Collector in his report and there was no prejudice that has been caused to the appellant and, therefore the order is not violative of the principles of natural justice. Hence this appeal.

( 3 ) SRI P. A. Choudary, learned counsel for the appellant contends that the State Government while exercising its powers under S. 50 (4) of the Act is not competent to call for the report or consult or to have any connection with the District Collector or any outside authority and the order must be passed by the State Government in its own right and without any outside consultation; that the report sent by the District Collector has been considered by the appellate authority without providing an opportunity to the appellant about the contents of the report and that the order of the appellate authority is also violative of the rules of natural justice. On the other hand, it is argued by the learned Government Pleader inter alia that no prejudice has been caused to the appellant as no new material has been indicated by the District Collector in his report dated 17-2-77 and there is no illegality in the procedure adopted and, therefore, there in no need to interfere with appellate order.

( 4 ) AT the outset we may state that the appellants counsel did not argue before us on the merits relating to the charges framed against the appellant by the District Collector. The counsel concentrated mainly on the procedure adopted by the State Government in the exercise of its jurisdiction under S. 50 (4 ). Admittedly the State Government is the appellate authority, in the instant case to consider the correctness or otherwise of the order passed by the District Collector under S. 50 (1) of the Act against the appellant. He was found guilty by the District Collector of certain irregularities and also misappropriation. However, we need not advert to the same as the sam