APHC010128662026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3331] FRIDAY,THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION NO: 6992/2026 Between: 1. V SRI DEVI, W/O. SANKARA RAO, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, OCC. SARPANCH RAMAVARAPPADU RESIDENT OF RAMAVARAPPADU, VIJAYAWADA, NTR DISTRICT, A.P. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, PANCHAYAT RAJ DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT BUILDING, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DIST.,522237 2. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR OF NTR DISTRICT, COLLECTORATE OFFICE, VIJAYAWADA, NTR DISTRICT, A.P.520001 3. THE DISTRICT PANCHAYAT OFFICER, GOLLAPUDI, NTR DISTRICT, A.P.520001 4. THE DIVISIONAL PANCHAYAT OFFICER, VIJAYAWADA, NTR DISTRICT, A.P.520001 ...RESPONDENT(S): p. 2 SRS,J W.P.No.6992 of 2026 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 pass orders, to issue writ order or direction, more particularly, one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the 2nd Respondent in issuing the impugned order dated 02-03- 2026, vide proceedings in RoC. No. 2/2026, suspending the Petitioner from the post of Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat Ramavarappadu as pre matured, illegal, arbitrary, misuse and abuse of power, besides violative of Section 249 (1) and (5) of the A.P. Panchayat Raj Act, Article14, 21 of the Constitution of India, thereby, set aside/revoke the impugned order dated 02-03-2026, vide proceedings in RoC. No. 2/2026 passed by the 2nd Respondent, in the interest of justice and also to pass IA NO: 1 OF 2026 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 pleased to pass interim orders to suspend the operation of impugned order dated 02-03-2026, vide proceedings in RoC. No. 2/2026, passed by the 2nd Respondent, in the interest of justice, and also to pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. ANIL KUMAR DASARI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ RURAL DEV 2. GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following: :: ORDER :: Heard Sri Aneel Kumar Dasari, learned counsel for the petitioner; Sri Rama Rao, learned Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj, for respondents 1 to 4. Page 3 of 8 SRS,J W.P.No.6992 of 2026 2. Assailing the proceedings issued by respondent No.2 vide ROC No.2 of 2026 dated 02.03.2026, suspending the petitioner from the post of Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat Ramavarappadu, for a period of six months, or until the end of the term of the Sarpach i.e. till 02.04.2026, the above writ petition was filed. 3. Based upon a complaint made by one J. Satish, regarding misappropriation of funds by the petitioner, the elected Sarpanch of Ramavarappadu Village, Vijayawada, N.T.R. District, the Divisional Panchayat Officer, submitted a report vide ROC No.09/2025, dated 23.12.2025. Thereafter, the Divisional Panchayat Officer addressed a letter to the petitioner vide ROC No. 02/2026 dated 03.02.2026 (Ex.P3), calling for an explanation. Subsequently, the Divisional Panchayat Officer, vide ROC No. 09/2025A dated 21.02.2026-Ex.P4, directed the petitioner to attend an inquiry before the Divisional Panchayat Officer, Vijayawada, along with the records, on 28.02.2026. In response, the petitioner made a representation dated 26.02.2026-Ex.P5, requesting the authority to furnish the documents and other relevant records. However, without considering the petitioner’s request, the Divisional Panchayat Officer issued proceedings vide ROC No.09/2025A dated 28.02.2026-Ex.P6 and issued the order impugned Ex.P7. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that neither the inquiry report nor the relevant documents were furnished to the petitioner vis-à-vis the allegations and misappropriation of funds. He would further submit that respondent No.2 failed to record the findings independently, regarding said misappropriation. 5. Per contra, learned Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj would submit that respondent No.2 considered all the aspects and passed the order impugned. He would submit that the petitioner mis-appropriated huge amount p. 4 SRS,J W.P.No.6992 of 2026 of Rs.1,64,31,758.50 paise and hence, the petitioner was suspended for six months or till completion of the period. 6. The point for consideration is whether the impugned proceedings are legally sustainable. 7. Shorn of all other details regarding the petitioner discharging duties as sarpanch etc., and a perusal of Ex.P7, proceedings impugned would indicate about the show cause notice, dated 03.01.2026 (Ex.P1), the petitioner’s explanation, dated 20.01.2026 (Ex.P2); the intimation given by the District Panchayat Officer’s by Ex.P3, dated 03.02.2026, to the petitioner, that her explanation was forwarded to the Inquiry Officer i.e. the Divisional Panchayat Officer, Vijayawada and all the records were handed over to the Panchayat Secretary on 02.02.2026. 8. A perusal of Ex.P4, proceedings of the Divisional Panchayat Officer would indicate that the petitioner was directed to attend the office of the Divisional Panchayat Officer on 28.02.2026 at 11:00 a.m. along with the entire records. Thereafter, the petitioner made a representation dated 26.02.2026, Ex.P5 and requested the authority to furnish the relevant documents, statements, if any, recorded by the witnesses, enabling the petitioner to submit an explanation within fifteen days. Thereafter, the Divisional Panchayat Officer vide Ex.P6 informed the petitioner that all the documents were made available for perusal of the petitioner from 02.03.2026 to 07.03.2026. However, on 02.03.2026 itself, respondent No.2 passed the order impugned, suspending the petitioner from the post of Sarpach, either for six months or till completion of the terms i.e. 02.04.2026. Page 5 of 8 SRS,J W.P.No.6992 of 2026 9. A careful perusal of Ex.P7 passed by respondent No.2 discloses that a finding was recorded that to the show cause notice, the petitioner submitted an explanation, however, failed to rebut the allegations in the show cause notice and since the explanation is not satisfactory, the petitioner was suspended from the post of Sarpanch for six months to till completion of the term. 10. It is pertinent to mention here that despite the request made by the petitioner to furnish the report and other relevant documents, neither the report of the Divisional Panchayat Officer dated 23.12.2025 nor any other documents were furnished to the petitioner. The petitioner, vide Ex.P5, requested the authority to furnish the documents and statement of witnesses, if any, recorded. However, the same were not furnished to the petitioner. Instead, by Ex.P6, proceedings, the petitioner was informed that the documents, which are available in the office of the Gram Panchayat, can be verified from 02.03.2026 to 07.03.2026. Thus, even before verification of the documents and submission of a proper explanation, the order impugned was passed by respondent No.2 as if the petitioner’s explanation was not satisfactory. 11. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Deepak Ananda Patil Vs. State of Maharashtra1, held thus: “18. It is a well-established principle of Administrative Law that an adjudicatory body cannot base its decision on any material unless the person against whom it is sought to be utilised has been apprised of it and given an opportunity to respond to it. Surveying the precedents extensively, M.P. Jain and S.N. Jain's treatise on Principles of p. 6 1 (2023) 11 SCC 130 : 2023 SCC OnLine SC 34 SRS,J W.P.No.6992 of 2026 Administrative Law [M.P. Jain & S.N. Jain, Principles of Administrative Law (LexisNexis, 8th Edn.) at pp. 490-91.] notes that: “If the adjudicatory body is going to rely on any material, evidence or document for its decision against a party, then the same must be brought to his notice and he be given an opportunity to rebut it or comment thereon. It is regarded as a fundamental principle of natural justice that no material ought to be relied on against a party without giving him an opportunity to respond to the same. The right of being heard may be of little value if the individual is kept in the dark as to the evidence against him and is not given an opportunity to deal with it. The right to know the material on which the authority is going to base its decision is an element of the right to defend oneself. If without disclosing any evidence to the party, the authority takes it into its consideration, and decides the matter against the party, then the decision is vitiated for it amounts to denial of a real and effective opportunity to the party to meet the case against him. The principle can be seen operating in several judicial pronouncements where non-disclosure of materials to the affected party has been held fatal to the validity of the hearing proceedings.” 12. Of course, the order impugned is not removal of the petitioner from the post of Sarpanch. However, even to suspend the petitioner, respondent No.2 must have recorded sufficient reasons regarding misappropriation of funds. The only finding recorded by respondent No.2, as seen from the proceedings impugned, referred to supra, that the explanation submitted by the petitioner is not satisfactory. The authority, in fact, exercised the jurisdiction under Section 249B of the Panchayat Raj Act, 1994. However, no reasons as mandated under Section 249 B (v) were recorded. In fact, as noted supra, no opportunity was given to the petitioner to make an effective representation. Without providing an opportunity to the petitioner, the authority should not have p. 7 SRS,J W.P.No.6992 of 2026 passed the order, impugned in this writ petition. Thus, the order impugned in this needs to be set aside. 13. Given the facts and circumstances of the case, this writ petition is allowed. The order impugned is hereby set aside. The matter is remitted to respondent No.2. Respondent No.2 or the concerned officer shall furnish the report and relevant records to the petitioner as mandated under Section 249 B(v) proviso, enabling her to submit an explanation and thereafter pass a reasoned order as expeditiously as possible, preferably within three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The petitioner shall also cooperate with the inquiry. No costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________________ JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI Date: 13.03.2026 IKN p. 8 SRS,J W.P.No.6992 of 2026 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION NO: 6992 of 2026 Date: 13.03.2026 IKN