The petitioner was elected as Sarpanch of the Gudur Gram Panchayat of Miryalaguda Mandal, Nalgonda District, in the year 2006. The District Collector, Nalgonda, the 2nd respondent herein, initiated proceedings under Section 249 of the A.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 (for short ‘the Act’), against the petitioner. On the basis of a complaint submitted by the Upa Sarpanch and certain Members of the Gram Panchayat, a show cause notice, dated 09.04.2007, was issued, in which six charges were framed. The petitioner submitted his explanation, on 04.05.2007. On receipt of the explanation, the 2nd respondent called for remarks of the Divisional Panchayat Officer, Miryalaguda, the 4th respondent herein, through the District Panchayat Officer, Nalgonda, the 3rd respondent herein. On a consideration of the same, he passed an order, dated 09.07.2007, directing removal of the petitioner from the office of Sarpanch. The petitioner filed an appeal before the 1st respondent. The appeal was dismissed through orders in G.O.Rt.No.1764, dated 24.11.2008. The same is challenged in this Writ Petition.

The petitioner contends that the 2nd respondent did not examine the matter by himself and simply by making a reference to the remarks offered by the Divisional Panchayat Officer, the order of removal was passed. He further contends that the 1st respondent did not take into account the principal contention, namely non-application of mind, by the 2nd respondent.

The 6th respondent filed a counter-affidavit supporting the impugned proceedings.

Sri V.Ramakrishna Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the impugned order discloses a clear case of non-application of mind. He contends that, except reproducing the charges framed against the petitioner, the explanation submitted by him and the remarks offered by the Divisional Panchayat Officer, the 2nd respondent did not examine the matter by himself and mechanically passed the order of suspension.

Learned Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj and Sri M.Raja Malla Reddy, learned counsel for the 6th respondent, on the other hand, submit that the 2nd respondent examined the matter in a very objective and detailed manner and arrived at a proper conclusion. They contend that the very fact that extensive reference is made by the 2nd respondent to the charges, explanation and remarks, discloses that he dealt with the matter in dispassionate manner.

As many as six charges were framed against the petitioner, on the basis of the complaint submitted by the 6th respondent and others. They relate mostly to the alleged failure of the petitioner, to account for certain amounts drawn by him. On receiving the show cause notice, dated 09.04.2007, the petitioner submitted his explanation on 04.05.2007, with reference to each charge. The show cause notice and the explanation submitted by the petitioner were forwarded to the 4th respondent for his remarks. After taking the same into account, the 2nd respondent passed the impugned order.

Section 249 of the Act confers exclusive power upon the 2nd respondent to direct removal of Sarpanch. A detailed procedure is prescribed. Neither the District Panchayat Officer, nor the Divisional Panchayat Officer, figures anywhere in the scheme under the Section. If the 2nd respondent has called for remarks either from the 3rd respondent, or the 4th respondent, it is in the process of satisfying himself, as to the correctness or otherwise of the allegations.

Sub-section (4) thereof clearly mandates that the satisfaction must be that of the District Collector, before he passes order of removal of an elected representative. It hardly needs any emphasis that compliance with the provision must be ensured before the drastic step of removal is resorted to.

In the instant case, as many as six charges were framed against the petitioner. A perusal of the proceedings, dated 09.07.2007, issued by the 2nd respondent, discloses that he reproduced each charge, the explanation submitte