Telangana High Court
Sri. Kunagalla Ganesh vs The State Of Telangana And 6 Others on 4 January, 2021
Bench: Challa Kodanda Ram
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
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
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
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
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
