THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA KODANDA RAM
WRIT PETITION No. 23499 of 2020
ORDER:
Petitioner is an Upa-Sarpanch of Turkalashapuram Gram Panchayat. On a complaint having been received from respondent Nos.6 and 7 stating that he is not cooperating in discharge of the functions, more particularly, refusing to sign the cheques, as a joint signatory, with respect to the various public works executed by the Gram Panchayat, respondent No.3 - District Collector (Panchayat), Jangaon, directed respondent No.5 - Divisional Panchayat Officer, Bhuvanagiri Town and District, to conduct enquiry into the matter. After considering the enquiry report dated 12.06.2020, respondent No.3 by invoking the provisions under Section 37(5) of the Telangana Panchayat Raj Act, 2018 (for short 'the Act'), issued a show cause notice dated 15.09.2020 to the petitioner calling for explanation as to why he shall not be suspended from the post of Upa-Sarpanch. As there is no explanation from the petitioner even after 40 days of receipt of the show cause notice, respondent No.3 passed order dated 02.12.2020 suspending him from the post of Upa Sarpanch. Questioning the said order, this Writ Petition is filed.
It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that in the impugned order, respondent No.3 had failed to record CKR, J 2 W.P.No.23499 of 2020 the specific instances or particulars of non-cooperation of the petitioner signing the cheques, as such, it is liable to be set aside. It is also the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that copy of the enquiry report of respondent No.5 was not given to the petitioner.
On the other hand, learned Assistant Government Pleader asserts that neither any objection was raised by the petitioner nor he chose to submit any explanation to the show cause notice and that there is also no challenge to the finding recorded by respondent No.5 in his enquiry report dated 12.06.2020. He also asserts that this Court does not sit in appeal over the findings recorded by the respective authorities.
It is not in dispute that the petitioner failed to submit explanation to the show cause notice dated 15.09.2020. In view of the same, his allegation that the respondents committed violation of the principles of natural justice pales into insignificance. Further, as it is his own violation, he did not choose to avail the opportunity given to him.
A perusal of the enquiry report of respondent No.5 would indicate that the petitioner alleged to have refused to sign the cheque for an amount of Rs.1,40,881/-, and the submissions of CKR, J 3 W.P.No.23499 of 2020 the Sarpanch as well as the Panchayat Secretary were recorded. Even before respondent No.5, the petitioner himself had stated that he had refused to sign the cheques, as, he found that the payments were sought to be made for the works, which were not executed, and thereby, the Sarpanch was misusing the funds. Though it is the allegation of the petitioner that no action was taken on his allegations, as a matter of fact, he did not choose to lodge any specific complaint to respondent No.3, who is entitled to look into these aspects and take action. It is only during the course of enquiry, the petitioner appeared to have levelled certain allegations against the Sarpanch. It may be noted that if the Gram Panchayat by resolution had recorded that certain works have been executed and further payments have to be made as per the bills prepared and approved by the respective Engineers, it is not for this Court to verify whether the said works were executed and whether the said payments being made were fabricated and false. In this view of the matter, if the petitioner had lodged complaint to respondent No.3 with specific instances, probably, respondent No.3 would have ordered enquiry with respect to the same. Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner's allegations were not taken into consideration cannot come to the rescue of the petitioner. One aspect of the matter, as urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner, CKR, J 4 W.P.No.23499 of 2020 however, requires to be considered that suspension can be for a maximum period of six months in terms of Section 37(5) of the Act, whereas, in the order impugned, there was no period of suspension mentioned.
In various judgments, while construing the provisions under the Andhra Pradesh Scheduled Commodities (Regulation and Distribution by Card System) Order, 1973, this Court held that non-mentioning of suspension period would vitiate the order of suspension. However, under Section 37(5) of the Act, suspension is not a measure of punishment, but, to facilitate the affairs of the Gram Panchayat to be carried out systematically without hindrance. The opinion that is required to be formed by the Collector and the period of suspension would depend on facts of each case and the gravity of charges under enquiry.
In the present case, though the finding was recorded, with respect to the action, as warranted under Section 37(5) of the Act, the period of suspension has not been mentioned. An elected member of the Gram Panchayat cannot be kept away from discharging his functions indefinitely or for a period more than that is required, as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Hence, the matter is required to be remanded to respondent No.3 for specifying the period of suspension.
CKR, J 5 W.P.No.23499 of 2020 Subject to the above, the order impugned is remitted back to respondent No.3 only to the extent of specifying the period of suspension after taking into consideration the gravity of the allegations levelled against the petitioner as well as the findings recorded with respect thereto. This entire exercise be completed within a period of three (3) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
Accordingly, this Writ Petition is disposed of. Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
_________________________ CHALLA KODANDA RAM, J 4th JANUARY, 2021.
kvni