ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT AT AMARAVATHI
Battu Devanand, J.
Intoori Chandra Mohan Rao - Appellant
Versus
State of Andhra Pradesh - Respondent
Writ Petition No. 11174 of 2021
Decided On : 27-07-2021
PANCHAYAT RAJ - LIABILITY OF SARPANCH - SECTION 265 OF ANDHRA PRADESH PANCHAYAT RAJ ACT, 1994 - RECOVERY OF MISAPPROPRIATED FUNDS - CONDITIONS PRECEDENT - NOTICE AND OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING - MALICE IN LAW - ILLEGALITY.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioner, an Ex-Sarpanch of Moyyeru Gram Panchayat, challenged the impugned proceedings issued by Respondent No.2 under Section 265 of the Andhra Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 (1994 Act), alleging misappropriation of Gram Panchayat funds and authorizing recovery of the amount. The petitioner contended that the proceedings were issued without following due process, without notice or opportunity to be heard, and in violation of principles of natural justice.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that Respondent No.2 failed to comply with the requirements of Section 265(1) of the 1994 Act, which mandates a specific finding of loss due to misconduct or gross negligence and an opportunity for the Sarpanch to show cause. The Court held that the impugned order was issued without following the proper procedure and was therefore vitiated by illegality and malice in law.
Issues: 1. Whether Respondent No.2 followed the procedure prescribed under Section 265 of the Andhra Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act, 1994, before issuing the impugned proceedings? 2. Whether the impugned proceedings were issued in violation of principles of natural justice?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. Section 265(1) of the 1994 Act requires a specific finding that loss to the Gram Panchayat is a direct consequence of misconduct or gross negligence and that the Sarpanch has not acted in good faith. Respondent No.2 failed to make such findings before issuing the impugned proceedings. 2. The principles of natural justice require that a person be given notice and an opportunity to be heard before an adverse decision is made against them. Respondent No.2 failed to provide the petitioner with such an opportunity.
Final Decision: The Court allowed the Writ Petition and set aside the impugned proceedings issued by Respondent No.2 under Section 265 of the Andhra Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act, 1994.
JUDGMENT
Battu Devanand, J. - This Writ Petition has been filed against the action of respondent No.2 in issuing Proceedings No. A5/e-1761789/2019, dated 06.04.2021 under Section 265 of the Andhra Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 (for short "1994 Act"), as illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction and consequential direction to set aside the impugned proceedings directing the respondents to follow due process of law.
2. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj appearing for Respondent Nos. 1 & 5, and the learned Government Pleader appearing for Respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4 and perused the material available on record.
3. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner is a Ex.Sarpanch of Moyyeru Gram Panchayat of Ganapavaram Mandal, West Godavari District, Andhra Pradesh.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Audit Department checked all accounts of the Gram Panchayat from time to time and there are no any objections or misappropriation of public funds found against the petitioner. Now, the respondents issued the impugned proceedings stating that the petitioner misappropriated the Gram Panchayat funds to a tune of Rs.25,66,878/- and authorized the Tahsildar, Ganapavaram, to recover the said amount from the petitioner by initiating proceedings under Revenue Recovery Act. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner discharged his duties without there being any misconduct, commission or omission, negligent in performing the duties and as such, the allegations made against the petitioner are misconceived. He further contended that respondent No.2 without following the procedure provided under Section 265 of the A.P. Panchayat Raj Act issued the impugned proceedings.
5. Learned counsel further submits that no notice was issued and no opportunity was given to the petitioner to put forth his case before Respondent No.2 before passing the impugned proceedings dated 06.04.2021. It is contended that the order impugned in this Writ Petition is issued in violation of principles of natural justice and prayed this Court to set aside the same in the interest of justice.
6. Upon perusal of the impugned order, this Court deems it fit to direct the Officer, who passed the impugned order to file Counter Affidavit, if the said Officer is not working as 2 nd respondent as of now.
7. A counter affidavit has been filed by the concerned Officer on behalf of respondent No.2. In the Counter Affidavit, it is contended by the learned counsel for Respondent No.2 that one Mane Satyanarayana, has submitted a petition in Spandana Programme on 28.10.2019, alleging that several irregularities took place in the administration of Gram Panchayat, Moyyeru. The Divisional Panchayat Officer, Eluru, enquired and verified the Gram Panchayat records and submitted a report on 09.11.2019. The Divisional Panchayat Officer, Eluru, reported that there is misappropriation of funds to a tune of Rs.25,65,878/- committed by the petitioner. On 02.12.2020, the said Report was submitted to the Commissioner of Panchayat Raj and Rural Development for necessary further action. The Commissioner for Panchayat Raj and Rural Development issued instructions to the District Collector, West Godavari District, requesting to take action as per rules in the Andhra Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act, 1994, against the petitioner, vide Memo No.1303417/CPR&RD/B1/2020, dt. 18.01.2021.
8. It is averred in the Counter of the respondent No.2 that originally the power vested with the Commissioner, Panchayat Raj, under Sub Section (1) of Section 265 of 1994 Act for fixation of liability of Sarpanch for loss, waste or misapplication of the property. As per Sub Section (2) of Section 265 of 1994 Act, if the amount not so paid, the Commissioner shall cause it to be recovered as arrear of land revenue and credit to the funds of the Gram Panchayat. On receipt of the instructions from the Commissioner, PR & RD, the Distri
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.