Back
2021 Supreme(AP) 176
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
Arup Kumar Goswami, C. Praveen Kumar, JJ.
C. Lokesh Reddy, S/o. C. Subramanyam Reddy – Petitioner
Versus
The State of Andhra Pradesh, represented by its Principal Secretary, Panchayat Raj Department and others – Respondents
W.P. (PIL) No. 167 of 2019
Decided On : 01-04-2021
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Narra Srinivasa Rao, assisted by Mr. P. Murali.
For the Respondent: Mr. Y.V. Ravi Prasad, Senior Counsel assisted by Mr.P.Hemachandra
Point of Law: 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 – No relief can be granted
Headnote:
Constitution Of India,1950 - Misappropriation of huge amount of money - Petitioner seeks issuance of Writ of Mandamus for recovery amount from Respondent in view of report of Revenue Divisional Officer also for appropriate action against Respondent –
Finding of the Court:
District Panchayat Officer Districting his earlier report requested District Collector District to initiate disciplinary action against Respondent – Accordingly draft articles of charge were called for against Respondent - Pursuant thereto report came to be submitted by District Panchayat Officer District vide his proceedings Commissioner Panchayat Raj & Rural Development stating that no irregularities were committed in construction of diversion channel was not encroached and no funds are misused - He requested to drop further action against Respondent - Relevant portion of report reads as Commissioner in reference cited has instructed submit draft article charges against Secretary Grade Gram Panchayat - After perusing actual position verifying records and considering report of then submitted submit that there is no irregularities committed in construction of diversion channel is not encroached no funds are misused and hence court request to drop further action against Reddy Panchayat Secretary Grade Gram Panchayat reading two reports referred to above would clearly indicate that there were no acts of misappropriation by Respond entwine constructing culvert - As said culvert came to be constructed under control and authority of District Panchayatmuch sanctity can be attached to these two reports which were ultimately looked into by Government and accepted same leading to dropping of charges against Respondent –
Result: Petition dismissed
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. 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
