Removal of a Sarpanch requires adherence to natural justice principles and independent findings. Failure to present facts disqualifies claims for writ relief.

ORDER

Heard Sri B.Sesibushan Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri P.Rajesh Kumar, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj and Rural Development.

2. The above writ petition was filed impugning the proceedings issued by the 2^nd respondent vide ROC.No.5299/2024-A1 dated 12.02.2026 (Ex.P7), whereby the petitioner was removed permanently as Sarpanch of Venkatachalam Gram Panchayat, as illegal and arbitrary.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the order passed by the 2^nd respondent suffers from violation of the principles of Natural Justice. The petitioner attended the office of the 2^nd respondent on 11.02.2026 and sought time. The 2^nd respondent agreed, however, and passed the order impugned. He would further submit that the 2^nd respondent has not recorded any independent finding, vis-à-vis, the allegations of misappropriation of funds against the petitioner. Learned counsel relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in Sonam Lakra vs. State of Chhattisgarh and others , (2024) 11 S.C.R. 2362

4. On the other hand, the learned Assistant Government Pleader, while reporting no counter, would submit that the petitioner, without availing of the effective alternative remedy provided under Section 249-B (6) of the Andhra Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 , filed the above writ petition and hence the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. He would further submit that the petitioner failed to attend the inquiry despite the notice served by the District Collector, and the same was recorded in the impugned proceedings dated 12.01.2026 (Ex.P7). He would further point out that the District Collector recorded independent findings regarding the misappropriation of funds by the petitioner and passed an appropriate order.

5. In reply, learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the petitioner appeared before the 2^nd respondent and informed about the filing of the writ petition challenging the notice dated 09.02.2026 and requested an adjournment, and the 2^nd respondent agreed to consider the same.

6. Since both the learned counsel argued the writ petition on merits, and the learned Assistant Government Pleader reported no counter, this court inclines to pass orders in the main writ petition.

7. The point for consideration is:

Whether the proceedings impugned dated 12.01.2026 (Ex.P7), are legally sustainable or warrant interference?

8. Shorn of all details, there is no dispute that the petitioner was elected as Sarpanch of Venkatachalam during the year 2021. The cheque drawing power of the petitioner was suspended by proceedings vide ROC No. 5299/2024-A1, dated 24.09.2025. Later, the petitioner was suspended from the post of Sarpanch vide proceedings ROC No. 5299/2024-A1 dated 23.10.2025. The petitioner filed W.P. 30921 of 2025 and the same was disposed of on 26.11.2025, directing the District Collector to conclude the enquiry and pass final orders within four weeks from the date of the order, and if no orders are passed, the proceedings dated 23.12.2025 would be suspended. Since the enquiry was not completed, the suspension order ceased to exist, and the petitioner resumed her office.

9. Later, the 3^rd respondent issued a notice dated 08.01.2026 (Ex.P2) and directed the petitioner to attend the office on 12.01.2026 at 3 P.M. and to submit documents, if any, relating to misappropriation of funds. According to the petitioner, she attended the office on 12.01.2026 and sought time and requested to furnish copies of relevant records. The 2^nd respondent issued a show cause notice dated 12.01.2026, Ex. P1. Assailing the show cause notice, Ex. P1, the petitioner filed W.P. No. 2053 of 2026. The writ petition was