V Ravi Nayak vs The District Collector,
2021 Latest Caselaw 575 AP

Citation : 2021 Latest Caselaw 575 AP
Judgement Date : 3 February, 2021

Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati

V Ravi Nayak vs The District Collector, on 3 February, 2021

Bench: M.Satyanarayana Murthy

     THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

                 WRIT PETITION No.11663 of 2020
ORDER:

This writ petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is

filed by the petitioner seeking the following relief:

"....issue a Writ, order or direction, more particularly, one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the impugned Procgs.No.A5/e-1761219/2019, dt.18.02.2020, passed by the 1st respondent as illegal, arbitrary, without jurisdiction and violative of Art.14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India, and consequently set aside the same by holding that the petitioner is entitled to be reinstated into service with all consequential benefits, and pass such other order or orders...."

2. The main grievance of the petitioner, who is working as Panchayat

Secretary Grade I of Denduluru Gram Panchayat, West Godavari District,

with effect from 22.02.2019, is that a charge memo was issued against

him alleging that he misappropriated Gram Panchayat funds to a tune of

Rs.3,93,548/-. Thereafter, respondent No.1 issued a show cause notice,

dated 18.02.2020, stating as to why the aforestated misappropriated

amount should not be recovered from the petitioner and asked him submit

explanation within seven days from the date of receipt of the said show

cause notice. Accordingly, the petitioner submitted his explanation, dated

26.02.2020, denying the allegations. However, before verifying the

explanation of the petitioner, respondent No.1 issued the impugned

proceedings, dated 18.02.2020, placing the petitioner under suspension.

The same is now challenged on the ground of incompetency of

respondent No.1 to place the petitioner under suspension as the

Commissioner of Panchayat Raj is the competent disciplinary authority to

place the petitioner - Panchayat Secretary Grade-I, under suspension and

requested to grant the relief as stated supra.

                                                2                                      MSM,J
                                                                        W.P.No.11663 of 2020

3. During hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated the

contentions raised in the writ petition, while placing reliance on the

judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in W.P.No.30095 of 2016,

dated 07.09.2016, and on the strength of the principles laid down therein,

he submitted that the Commissioner of Panchayat Raj is the competent

disciplinary authority to place the Panchayat Secretaries Grade I & II,

under suspension and accordingly, he sought to set aside the impugned

proceedings.

4. On the other hand, learned Government Pleader for Services II

appearing for the respondents contended that as per the principles laid

down in the judgment referred to above, the Commissioner of Panchayat

Raj passed a separate order, dated 22.05.2020, placing the petitioner

under suspension and requested to dismiss the writ petition.

5. The order under challenge, dated 18.02.2020, is passed by

respondent No.1 - District Collector, who is incompetent to place the

petitioner - Panchayat Secretary Grade I, under suspension, in view of

the law declared by the Division Bench of this Court in W.P.No.30095 of

2016, dated 07.09.2016, wherein it was observed as under:

"This being the legal position, Rule 14 of the Rules of 19911, which deals with disciplinary authorities and authorities competent to suspend in respect of subordinate services, would have to be categorized as general rules in the face of special rules framed for subordinate services in Panchayat Raj Department. Trite to state, the special rules would prevail over the general rules to the extent of contradictions, if any. The gaps in the special rules, if any, may be filled up by taking recourse to the general rules but to the extent that the special rule states to the contrary, the general rule must necessarily give way. In the light of the special rule stated supra indicating that it is only the Commissioner of Panchayat Raj and Rules Employment who would exercise the powers of a disciplinary authority over Panchayat Secretaries Grade I and II,

Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1991, 3 MSM,J W.P.No.11663 of 2020

the general rule under Rule 14 of the Rules of 1991, which states to the contrary, cannot be applied. This is in keeping with the maxim specialia generalibus derogant."

6. If the principles laid down in the above judgment is applied to the

present facts of the case, with reference to the relevant Rules,

the competent disciplinary authority to place the Panchayat Secretaries

Grade I & II under suspension would be the Commissioner of Panchayat

Raj alone. Accordingly, the order, dated 22.05.2020, passed by the

Commissioner of Panchayat Raj, placing the petitioner under suspension

as submitted by the learned Government Pleader for Services II appearing

for the respondents, is suffice to hold that the order under challenge,

dated 18.02.2020, passed by respondent No.1 is without any jurisdiction

and on this ground alone the same is liable to set aside. But, as the

suspension order, dated 22.05.2020, passed by the Commissioner of

Panchayat Raj is not the subject matter of the present writ petition, this