::1:: APHC010074102025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3329] MONDAY,THE EIGHTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO: 3883/2025 Between: 1. BODDETI AMMAJI LAKSHMI,, W/O. VENKATA RAMANA, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, R/O. G-KODURU VILLAGE, MAKAVARAPUPALEM MANDALAM, ANAKAPALLI DISTRICT ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY,DEPARTMENT OF PANCHAYAT RAJ AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT, A.P. SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATI, ANDHRA PRADESH. 2. THE COMMISSIONER PANCHAYAT RAJ AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT OFFICE, AT P V S EMPIRE, TADEPALLI GUNTUR DISTRICT 3. THE COLLECTOR AND DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, PANCHAYAT WING ANAKAPALLI ANAKAPALLI DISTRICT 4. THE DISTRICT PANCHAYAT OFFICER, ANAKAPALLI ::2:: ANAKAPALLI DISTRICT. 5. THE DIVISIONAL PANCHAYAT OFFICER, NARSIPATNAM, ANAKAPALLI DISTRICT. 6. THE MANDAL PARISHAD OFFICER, MAKAVARAPALEM MANDAL ANAKAPALLI DISTRICT. 7. HE EXTENSION OFFICER PR AND RDT DEVELOPMENT, MAKAVARAPALEM MANDAL, ANAKAPALLI DISTRICT 8. THE UNION BANK OF INDIA, REP. BY ITS MANAGER, MAKAVARAPALEM ANAKAPALLI DISTRICT. 9. G KODURU GRAM PANCHAYAT, REP. BY ITS PANCHAYAT SECRETARY, G. KONDURU VILLAGE, MAKAVARAPALEM MANDAL, ANAKAPALLI DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): 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 issue a writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondent no.3 in Suspending the Petitioner as Sarpanch of G.Koduru Grama Panchayath, Makavarapalem Mandal, Anakapalli District, and withdrawing the cheque drawing power of the petitioner for a period of three months by way of Proceedings in Rc.No.72574/2024/Bl Dt.27-01-2025, pursuant to the Show Cause Notice e-file No.72574/2024 dt.30-12-2024, which is questioned in W.P.No.l317 of 2025 filed by the ::3:: Petitioner and pending writ petition issuing the impugned proceedings by Respondent No.3, as illegal, arbitrary, without jurisdiction and violative of Art 14 and 21 of Constitution of India and contrary to Rule 41 and 42 (1) of G.O.Ms.No.30 PR and RT dt.21-01-1995 and consequently to set-aside the Proceedings in Rc.No.72574/2024/Bl Dt. 27-01-2025 issued by the Respondent No.3 and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. CKR ASSOCIATES Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ RURAL DEV ::4:: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO: 3883 of 2025 This Court made the following ORDER: This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief: “to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the action of the Respondent No.3 in suspending the petitioner as Sarpanch of G. Koduru Grama Panchayath, Makavarapalem Mandal, Anakapalli District, and withdrawing the cheque drawing power of the petitioner for a period of three months by way of Proceedings in Rc.No.72574 / 2024 / B1, dated 27.01.2025, pursuant to the show cause notice e-file No.72574/2024, dated 30.12.2024, which is questioned in W.P.No.1317 of 2025 filed by the petitioner and pending writ petition issuing the impugned proceedings by Respondent No.3, as illegal, arbitrary, without jurisdiction and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of Constitution of India and contrary to Rule 41 and 42 (1) of G.O.Ms.No.30 PR and RT dated 21.01.1995 and consequently to set-aside the proceedings in Rc.No.72574/2024 / 2024 / B1, dated 27.01.2025 issued by the Respondent No.3 and to pass such other order or orders” ::5:: 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is rendering her duties as Sarpanch of the Respondent No.4 Gram Panchayat. While so, on the complaint made by one Mr. Malla Jagannadha Rao regarding misappropriation of funds, a notice dated 05.08.2024 was issued to the petitioner seeking to furnish the records and submit an explanation. Subsequently, the petitioner has attended the enquiry and submitted her explanation to each of the allegations. Further, another notice dated 10.09.2024 was issued to the petitioner seeking the petitioner to report to the office of the Gram Panchayat on 12.09.2024 with the relevant material to defend the allegations leveled against her. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Respondent No.4 issued show cause notice dated 30.12.2024 stating that the petitioner along with the Panchayat Secretary has misappropriated funds of Panchayat. Aggrieved by the said action of Respondent No.4, the petitioner herein filed W.P.No.1317 of 2025 on 10.01.2025, which is pending for consideration by this Hon’ble Court. While so, the petitioner herein submitted her explanation dated 31.01.2025 to the said show cause notice, but no orders were passed by considering petitioner’s explanation. ::6:: 3. Further learned counsel for the petitioner submits that while pending W.P.No.1317/2025 before this Hon’ble Court challenging the show cause notice dated 30.12.2024, the Respondent No.3 directly passed order in Rc.No.72574/2024/B1, dated 27.01.2025 suspending the petitioner from her post as Sarpanch for a period of three months and during the said period also suspended petitioner’s cheque drawing power as if the petitioner did not give any explanation to the show cause notice dated 30.12.2024. Aggrieved by the said impugned suspension order this present Writ Petition is being filed. He relied upon the ratio laid down by this Hon’ble Court in M. Kavitha vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh 1 wherein this Hon’be Court held thus: “13. The view taken by a learned Judge of this Court in SMT.B.SHASIKALA V/s. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR (PANCHAYAT WING), KARIMNAGAR DISTRICT, KARIMNAGAR[1], while dealing with this aspect is as under “The 1st respondent is no doubt vested with the power to place a Sarpanch under suspension. That however can be only as a measure pending enquiry or investigation into the charges framed under Section 249(1) of the Act. The record does not disclose that the 1st respondent has framed any charges under Section 249(1) of the Act or issued show cause notice. The power under Section 249(6) of the Act cannot be exercised independently.” 14. In YERNENI KUSUMA V/s. GOVERNMENT OF A.P. REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, PANCHAYAT RAJ, 1 2010 SCC OnLine AP 547: (2010) 5 ALD 750 ::7:: SECRETARIAT, HYDERABAD[2] another learned Judge of this Court considered the interplay between sub- sections (1) to (6) of Section 249 and held: “… Therefore, on a true construction of Section 249(1) and Section 249(6), the conclusion is irresistible that unless and until the action is contemplated under Section 249(1) and (4) and investigation is launched towards that goal, the exercise of power under Section 249(6) is not warranted. …” 15. In the present case, though the petitioner was placed under suspension on 11.11.2009 and this Court did not interdict further proceedings being initiated as contemplated under Section 249(6), by investigating the charges against the petitioner and commencing action under Section 249(1), no further action was taken. The authorities proceeded on the assumption that the power exercised under Section 249(6) was an independent one whereby they could suspend the petitioner without reference to any further action under Section 249(1) of the Act of 1994. This approach is not in keeping with the scheme of the provision. 16. The Writ Petition is accordingly allowed setting aside the order dated 11.11.2009 passed by the District Collector (Panchayat Wing), Karimnagar, suspending the petitioner Sarpanch for a period of three months. This, however, would not preclude the authorities from initiating action afresh against the petitioner, if the situation so warrants, in accordance with the procedure laid down under Section 249 of the Act of 1994. In the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs” 4. Respondent No.3 filed counter-affidavit stating that the liability/responsibility is to be apportioned to Sarpanch and Panchayat Secretary as per norms. The enquiry is pending and it shall be completed as expeditiously as possible. ::8:: 5. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Respondents and perused the material placed on record. 6. Admittedly, in the case on hand the respondent authorities not followed any further action as required under Section 249(6) which mandates as under: “249. Powers of Government to remove Sarpanch, President or Chairperson etc. (6) If the District Collector is of the opinion that a Sarpanch or a Upa-Sarpanch or any member of a Gram Panchayat or the Government are of the opinion that any President or Vice- President or the Chairperson or Vice-Chairperson or any member of a [Mandal Praja Parishad] [Substituted 'Mandal Parishad' by Act No. 41 of 2006, dated 23.9.2006.] or [Zilla Praja Parishad] [Substituted 'Zilla Parishad' by Act No. 41 of 2006, dated 23.9.2006.] wilfully omitted or refused to carry out the orders of Government for the proper working of the concerned local body or abused his position or the powers vested in him, and that the further continuance of such person in office would be detrimental to the interests of the concerned local body or the inhabitants of the Village, Mandal or District, the District Collector or as the case may be, Government may, by order, suspend such Sarpanch or Upa-Sarpanch or President or Vice-President or as the case may be, the Chairperson or Vice-Chairperson or member from office for a period not exceeding three months, pending investigation into the said charges and action thereon under the foregoing provisions of this Section: Provided that no order under this sub-Section shall be passed unless the person concerned has had an opportunity of making a representation against the action proposed: Provided further that it shall be competent for the Government to extend, from time to time, the period of suspension for such further period not exceeding three months; so however that the total period of suspension shall not exceed six months: ::9:: Provided also that a person suspended under this sub-Section shall not be entitled to exercise the powers and perform the functions attached to his office and shall not be entitled to attend the meetings of the concerned local body except a meeting held for the consideration of a no-confidence motion. 7. 7. In view of the submission made by both learned counsel, pursuant to the law laid down by this Court as mentioned supra, it is appropriate that this Writ Petition can be disposed of by setting aside the impugned order vide Rc.No.72574/2024/B1, dated 27.01.2025 passed by the Respondent No.3 and consequently directing the 3rd Respondent herein to consider the explanation of the Petitioner dated 31.01.2025 and pass speaking orders afresh in accordance with law after providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and other stakeholders if any within four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. As a sequel, interlocutory applications if any pending, shall stand closed. ______________________________________ JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA Dt:08.09.2025 krk ::10:: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA 108 WRIT PETITION NO: 3883 of 2025 08.09.2025 krk