Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to pass orders, to issue writ order or direction, more particularly, one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the 2nd Respondent in issuing the impugned order dated 02-03- 2026, vide proceedings in RoC. No. 2/2026, suspending the Petitioner from the post of Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat Ramavarappadu as pre matured, illegal, arbitrary, misuse and abuse of power, besides violative of Section 249 (1) and (5) of the A.P. Panchayat Raj Act, Article14, 21 of the Constitution of India, thereby, set aside/revoke the impugned order dated 02-03-2026, vide proceedings in RoC. No. 2/2026 passed by the 2nd Respondent, in the interest of justice and also to pass

IA NO: 1 OF 2026

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased pleased to pass interim orders to suspend the operation of impugned order dated 02-03-2026, vide proceedings in RoC. No. 2/2026, passed by the 2nd Respondent, in the interest of justice, and also to pass

Counsel for the Petitioner:

1. ANIL KUMAR DASARI

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1. GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ RURAL DEV

2. GP FOR REVENUE

The Court made the following:

:: ORDER ::

Heard Sri Aneel Kumar Dasari, learned counsel for the petitioner; Sri Rama Rao, learned Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj, for respondents1 to 4.

2. Assailing the proceedings issued by respondent No.2 vide ROC No.2 of 2026 dated 02.03.2026, suspending the petitioner from the post of Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat Ramavarappadu, for a period of six months, or until the end of the term of the Sarpach i.e. till 02.04.2026, the above writ petition was filed.

3. Based upon a complaint made by one J. Satish, regarding misappropriation of funds by the petitioner, the elected Sarpanch of Ramavarappadu Village, Vijayawada, N.T.R. District, the Divisional Panchayat Officer, submitted a report vide ROC No.09/2025, dated 23.12.2025. Thereafter, the Divisional Panchayat Officer addressed a letter to the petitioner vide ROC No. 02/2026 dated 03.02.2026 (Ex.P3), calling for an explanation. Subsequently, the Divisional Panchayat Officer, vide ROC No. 09/2025A dated 21.02.2026-Ex.P4, directed the petitioner to attend an inquiry before the Divisional Panchayat Officer, Vijayawada, along with the records, on 28.02.2026. In response, the petitioner made a representation dated 26.02.2026-Ex.P5, requesting the authority to furnish the documents and other relevant records. However, without considering the petitioner’s request, the Divisional Panchayat Officer issued proceedings vide ROC No.09/2025A dated 28.02.2026-Ex.P6 and issued the order impugned Ex.P7.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that neither the inquiry report nor the relevant documents were furnished to the petitioner vis-à-vis the allegations and misappropriation of funds. He would further submit that respondent No.2 failed to record the findings independently, regarding said misappropriation.

5. Per contra, learned Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj would submit that respondent No.2 considered all the aspects and passed the order impugned. He would submit that the petitioner mis-appropriated huge amount of Rs.1,64,31,758.50 paise and hence, the petitioner was suspended for six months or till completion of the period.

6. The point for consideration is whether the impugned proceedings are legally sustainable.

7. Shorn of all other details regarding the petitioner discharging duties as sarpanch etc., and a perusal of Ex.P7, proceedings impugned would indicate about the show cause notice, dated 03.01.2026 (Ex.P1), the petitioner’s explanation, dated 20.01.2026 (Ex.P2); the intimation given by the District Panchayat Officer’s by Ex.P3, dated 03.02.2026, to the petitioner, that her explanation was forwarded to the Inquiry