IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVA THURSDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI DHIRAJ SINGH THAKU^ AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO WRIT APPEAL NO: 134 OF 2025 Writ Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent preferred against the order dated 20.01.2025 in WP No. 106 OF 2025, on the file of the High Courtr- Between: V.Srujana, W/o. Venkateswarlu Reddy, Aged about 56 years, Occ: Sarpanch, Penubarthi Grampanchayat, R/o. Penubarthi village, Nellore Rural Mandal, SPSR Nellore District. ...APPELLANT _ AND 1. State of Andhra Pradesh, Panchayat Raj and Rural Development Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur District, Rep. by its Principal Secretary. The District Collector, SPSR Nellore District, Nellore. The District Panchayat Officer, SPSR Nellore District, Nellore. The Divisional Panchayat Officer, Nellore, SPSR Nellore District. The Mandal Parishad Development Officer, Nellore Rural Mandal, SPSR Nellore District. 2. 3. 4. 5. ...RESPONDENTS.^ lA NO: 1 OF 2025 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 to suspend the order in W.P.No.106 of 2025 in so far as permitting the respondents to extend the period of suspension of cheque power, pending disposal of the above Writ Appeal. ^A NO: 2 0F 2025 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 to suspend the proceedings of the 3'^'^ respondent vide ROC.No.2469/2024-A1 dated 30.01.2025, pending disposal of the above Writ Appeal. ^ Counsel for the Appellant: SRI C. SUBODH Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 4 : GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ & RURAL DEVELOPMENT^ Counsel for the Respondent No.5 : SRI M. SUDHIR, SC FOR GRAM PANCHAYAT The Court made the following: JUDGMENT Bench Sr.No;-7 [3446] APHC010080832025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI ■1 ■v f WRIT APPEAL NO: 134 of 2025 ...Appellant V.srujana Vs. ...Respondents State of Andhra Pradesh and others ********** Mr. C. Subodh Advocate for Appellant : Advocates for Respondents : GP for Panchayat Raj & Rural Development CORAM :THE CHIEF JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO DATE ; 20th February 2025 Per DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR. CJ : The present Writ Appeal, under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, has been preferred against the judgment and order, dated 20.01.2025, passed in W.P.No.106 of 2025. The appellant was the petitioner before the learned single Judge who is Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat in Nellore Mandal, Nellore District, against whom allegations of irregularities during the course of discharge of his duties as Sarpanch were made. The District Panchayat Officer, on receipt of 2. the complaint, directed an enquiry to be made in that regard. The enquiry report suggested that the petitioner was involved in financial irregularities and recommended departmental action against her. The show cause notice was 2 HCJ & RRRJ W.A.No.134 of 2025 also sent to the petitioner by the Revenue Divisional Officer to submit his explanation. After having considered the material on record as also the 3. explanation rendered by the petitioner, the District Panchayat Officer, Nellore District, by virtue of his order, dated 05.09.2024, ordered the withdrawal of the cheque drawing power for a period of three months. The order, dated 05.09.2024, came to be challenged by the petitioner by way of Writ Petition vide W.P.No.106 of 2025 as being in contravention of Rule 42 of the'''Rules relating to Certain Taxes and other lodging of moneys received by the Gram Panchayat and payment of moneys a from the Gram Panchayat Fund, notified by G.O.Ms.No.30 of Panchayat Raj, Rural Development & Relief Department, dated 20.01.1995, as also in violation of principles of natural justice. The Petitioner also sought a Mandamus with a view to exercise his cheque issuing power. 4. By virtue of an interim order, which is impugned in the present case, dated 20.01.2025, the learned single Judge proceeded to order as 5. under: Learned counsel for the 3''^ respondent would submit that the suspension period of three months was not extended. Under the aforesaid circumstances, the respondents herein are hereby directed to restore the cheque power of the petitioner 3 HCJ & RRRJ W.A.No.134 of 2025 herein. If at all, the respondents intend to extend the period of suspension, they shouid foiiow the procedure estabiished by iaw. ” 6. In the present writ appeal, it is urged that there was no occasion f for the learned single Judge to give any leverage to the respondents to extend the period of suspension in regard to the power of the appellant to issue a cheque inasmuch as Rule 42 of the Rules, 1995, did not at all envisage any power of extension with the respondents. For facility of reference. Rule 42 of the Rules, 1995, is reproduced hereinbelow; “42. (1) The District Panchayat Officer concerned may, for sufficient reasons to be recorded in writing, prohibit by an order any Sarpanch from drawing the moneys of the Gram Panchayat for such period as may be specified in such order. Provided that no such order shall be passed unless opportunity of making representation has been given to the Sarpanch concerned. Provided further that the District Panchayat Officer may issue an interim direction to the Sarpanch not to draw the moneys of the Gram Panchayat pending the exercise of his powers under this sub- ruie. (2) Any Sarpanch aggrieved by an order passed by the District Panchayat Officer concerned under sub-rule (1) may prefer an appeal in writing to the District Coiiector concerned within seven days of the receipt of the order and the decision of the District Coiiector thereon shall be final. (3) Every order passed under sub-rule (1) shall specify the name of the person or the authority who shaii draw the moneys of the Gram Panchayat during the period during which the Sarpanch is prohibited from drawing such moneys. 4 HCJ & RRRJ W.A.No.134 of 2025 (4) A copy of every order passed under sub-rule (1) or sub rule (2) shall be communicated to all banks and treasuries in which the moneys of the Gram Panchayat are lodged. (5) On and from the date of receipt of such order by any bank or treasury, no payment shall, for the period specified in such order, be made to the Sarpanch who is prohibited by such order from drawing the moneys of the Gram Panchayat.” Pursuant to the order, dated 20.01.2025, passed by the learned 7. single Judge, the respondent No.3 - the District Panchayat Officer, Nellore District, by virtue of order, dated 30.01.2025, has further suspended the power of the petitioner to issue cheques and withdraw the funds of the Gram Panchayat for a period of three months. It is in the aforementioned backdrop that the present writ appeal 8. has been preferred by the petitioner/appellant herein who claims that, but for the order impugned passed by the learned single Judge permitting the District Panchayat Officer to follow the procedure as prescribed by law, the said respondent extended the period of suspension, as if the said District Panchayat Officer did have the power to extend the period of suspension. Learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, tried to 9. emphasize that the earlier order passed by the District Panchayat Officer, dated 05.09.2024, was nothing but an order passed in exercise of powers vested in terms of second proviso to Rule 42 of the Rules, 1995. On a perusal of Rule 42 of the Rules, 1995, it can be seen that 10. the District Panchayat Officer is vested with the power to prohibit a Sarpanch 5 HCJ & RRRJ W.A.No.134 of 2025 from drawing the money of the Gram Panchayat for such period, as may be specified in such order. The second proviso to Rule 42(1) of the Rules however, authorizes the District Panchayat Officer as an interim measure not to draw the money of the Gram Panchayat pending the exercise of his powers under the said sub-rule. It is thus clear that the power under second proviso to Rule 42 of 11. the Rules, 1995, could be exercised at the initial stages, where an allegation is received against a Sarpanch, but no inquiry is ordered or held. However, once the allegations are inquired into, a report is called for and a show cause notice issued based upon the inquiry report, whereafter the explanation to the show- cause notice is considered, and an order of suspension passed, as in the present case, which was passed on 05.09.2024, there was no further scope of passing yet another order of suspension or extending the period of suspension already passed, which had since lived its life. In our opinion, therefore, that part of the judgment and order 12. impugned, dated 20.01.2025, which left the scope for the respondents to extend the period of suspension, leading to the passing of the order, dated 30.01.2025, yet again, in our opinion, would be unsustainable in law. In view of the fact that the power in terms of Rule 42(1) of the 13. Rules, 1995, had already been exercised by the District Panchayat Officer, fixing the period of suspension, which was to run for a period of three months no further extension of said period could be permissible inasmuch as an 6 HCJ & RRRJ W.A.No.134 of2025 earlier round of suspension had been passed in terms of Rule 42(1) and not in terms of second proviso to Rule 42(1). 14. In that view of the matter, the Writ Appeal is allowed and the judgment and order impugned, dated 20.01.2025, is set aside to the extent that it permitted the issue of extension of the period of suspension by the respondents. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. Sd/- M.RAMESH BABU DEPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTfON OFFICER To, 1. The Principal Secretary State of Andhra Pradesh, Panchayat Raj and Rural Development Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur District. ” 2. The District Collector, SPSR Nellore District, Nellore. 3. The District Panchayat Officer, SPSR Nellore District, Nellore. ^ 4. The Divisional Panchayat Officer, Nellore, SPSR Nellore District. 5. The Mandal Parishad Development Officer, Nellore Rural Mandal, SPSR Nellore District 6. One CC to Sri C. Subodh, Advocate [OPUC] 7. Two CCs to GP for Panchayat Raj & Rural Development, High Couifof Andhra Pradesh. [OUT] 8. One CC to Sri M. Sudhir, SC for Gram Panchayat (OPUC), 9. Three C.D. Copies. Cnr HIGH COURT DATED:20/02/2025 JUDGMENT WA.No.134 Of 2025 S? 13 MAR 2025 ^ Current Section ^!k£^sp»atcva^ ALLOWING THE WRIT APPEAL WITHOUT COSTS