Back
2020 Supreme(Telangana) 868
IN THE HIGH COURT OF STATE OF TELANGANA
Challa Kodanda Ram, J.
Anantha Rao Deshpande – Appellant
Versus
The State of Telangana and Ors. – Respondents
Writ Petition No. 12778 of 2020
Decided On : 01-10-2020
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Jithender Rao Veeramalla
For the Respondent: GP and G. Narender Reddy
Point of law: Section 37(5) of the Act can also be viewed independently, as, before initiating proceedings under Section 37(5) of the Act, the District Collector is required to come to a prima facie opinion that the facts warrant initiation of proceedings under Section 37(1)(i) and (ii) of the Act
Headnote:
Telangana Panchayat Raj Act, 2018 - Section 43 ,32,44,37(5) 37(1) 249(6) and141 - Omissions and commissions - Petitioner having been elected as Sarpanch for first time, not being aware of niceties of procedural aspects with regard to conducting of Office of Sarpanch, committed some lapse in complying with procedural aspects; that a detailed explanation submitted by him to show cause notice was not considered in proper perspective, more particularly, with regard to maintenance of records, responsibility, of which, is of Panchayat Secretary but not Sarpanch and that there is no allegation levelled against petitioner with regard to misappropriation or misuse of funds and petitioner had not conducted affairs of Panchayat efficiently - He further contends that no charges were framed against petitioner invoking as such, order impugned suspending him from Office of Sarpanch pending enquiry is unauthorized and ultra vires –
Finding of the court : present case, enquiry has already been initiated under and suspension pending investigation has been ordered and enquiry is yet to be concluded - Court is not inclined to interfere with impugned order, at this stage - However, it is directed that enquiry with respect to allegations levelled against petitioner is to be completed in all respects by District Collector within a period of six weeks from date of receipt of a copy of order and he shall pass appropriate orders on merits after giving due opportunity to petitioner - Only, suspension not exceeding for six months shall be ordered - Court should be borne in mind that suspension up to period of six months is not a measure of punishment, but it is only to enable authorities to conduct investigation with respect to charges –
Result :Writ petition is Disposed
ORDER :
Challa Kodanda Ram, J.
1. In this writ petition, petitioner prays for declaring the order dated 21.07.2020 passed by respondent No. 2-District Collector, Nizamabad, suspending him from the Office of Sarpanch, Pochampally Gram Panchayat, Velpur Mandal, Nizamabad District, as illegal, null and void and contrary to the provisions of the Telangana Panchayat Raj Act, 2018 (for short 'the Act'), and consequently, direct the respondents to continue him as Sarpanch.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the omissions and commissions on the part of the petitioner, as alleged in the show cause notice, are trivial in nature; that the petitioner having been elected as Sarpanch for the first time, not being aware of the niceties of the procedural aspects with regard to conducting of the Office of the Sarpanch, committed some lapse in complying with the procedural aspects; that a detailed explanation submitted by him to the show cause notice was not considered in proper perspective, more particularly, with regard to maintenance of records, responsibility, of which, is of the Panchayat Secretary but not the Sarpanch and that there is no allegation levelled against the petitioner with regard to misappropriation or misuse of funds and the petitioner had not conducted the affairs of the Panchayat efficiently. He further contends that no charges were framed against the petitioner invoking Section 37(1) of the Act, as such, the order impugned suspending him from the Office of Sarpanch pending enquiry under Section 37(5) of the Act is unauthorized and ultra vires. In support of his contention, he has placed reliance on the judgment in Yerneni Kusuma Vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh 2010 (6) ALD 737, wherein, this Court while considering the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act, 1994, more particularly Section 249 thereof, which is in pari materia with Section 37, held that it is only in the process of enquiry initiated under Section 249(2), action could be taken under Section 249(6). He has also placed reliance on the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Madasu Ravi Vs. State of Telangana 2018 (5) ALD 235 DB as well as the order dated 09.02.2010 passed by this Court in W.P. No. 24320 of 2009.
3. On the other hand, learned Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj and Rural Development appearing for respondent Nos. 1 to 3, while placing reliance on the judgments in Janagama Shankaraiah Vs. Government of A.P. and others 2011 (1) ALD 251 and M. Kavitha Vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh and others 2010 (5) ALD 750, would submit that the order of this Court in W.P. No. 24320 of 2009, referred to by the learned counsel for the petitioner, was distinguished in the judgment in Janagama Shankaraiah (supra). He would further submit that as against the impugned order, there is a remedy of Appeal available to the petitioner under Section 141 of the Act. He would also submit that enquiry has been initiated under Section 37(1) of the Act and suspension is only pending investigation, hence, the impugned order does not call for interference by this Court.
4. With respect to removal of Sarpanch from the Office under Section 37 (1) of the Act, the District Collector should come to prima facie opinion on the allegations to be enquired into and provide an opportunity for submitting/furnishing explanation therefor. Section 37(5) of the Act empowers the District Collector to pass an order suspending the Sarpanch from the Office for a period not exceeding six months, if there is breach or violation of the conditions enumerated in Section 37(1) of the Act.
5. The language employed in Section 37(5) of the Act is clear. Suspension can be ordered 'pending investigation into the charges', but it is not with respect to 'pending enquiry into the charges'. Section 37(1) of the Act is with respect to initiation of proceedings for removal of Sarpanch from the Office, whereas Section 37(5) of the Act is to meet the contingencies that may arise on
