APHC010502342025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3331] THURSDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION NO: 26318/2025 Between: N Sundaraiah ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Ap and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. V VINOD K REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ RURAL DEV 2. GP FOR REVENUE The Court made the following: :: ORDER :: Impugning the proceedings issued by the 4th respondent, District Panchayat Officer, vide ROC.No.2887/2024-A2, dated 23.07.2025, withdrawing the cheque power to the petitioner for a period of six months, the above writ petition is filed. p. 2 SRS,J W.P.No.26318 of 2025 2. Averments in the affidavit, in brief, are that: a) The petitioner was elected as Sarpanch of Yanamadala village, Chejerla Mandal, SPSR Nellore District in the elections held in April 2021. A complaint was made against the petitioner to the District Collector through PGRS on 29.07.2024. The Divisional Panchayat Officer, Atmakur-5th respondent herein, conducted an enquiry. The petitioner received a show cause notice dated 02.11.2024, pointing out alleged financial irregularities in respect of the R.O. Water Plant from April 2021 to December 2021 and also alleging misappropriation of income generated from the said RO Water Plant. The petitioner, by letter dated 18.11.2024, requested time to submit an explanation and thereafter submitted a detailed explanation dated 24.11.2024 on 28.11.2024 to the 4th respondent. The 4th respondent issued proceedings vide ROC.No.2887/2024-A2, dated 27.11.2024, withdrawing the cheque powers of the petitioner for a period of three months in accordance with Rule 41 & 42(1) Rules Relating To Certain Taxes And Lodging Of Moneys Received By The Gram Panchayats And Payment Of Money From The Gram Panchayat Fund under G.O.Ms.No.30 Panchayat Raj & Rural Development & Relief Department, dated 20.01.1995 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Rules’). b) The petitioner filed W.P.No.770 of 2025, and the same was disposed of on 10.01.2025, setting aside the proceedings dated 27.11.2024 issued by the 4th respondent and the 4th respondent was directed to consider the explanation dated 24.11.2024 submitted by the p. 3 SRS,J W.P.No.26318 of 2025 petitioner and pass a speaking order in accordance with law by providing an opportunity of hearing within four weeks. c) While the matter stood thus, the petitioner received notice dated 08.04.2025 (Ex.P6) from the office of the 5th respondent to attend the enquiry on 10.04.2025. The petitioner attended the enquiry and submitted a detailed explanation (Ex.P5). Thereafter, the petitioner received a show cause notice vide ROC.No.2887/2024-A2, dated 20.06.2025 (Ex.P3) from the 4th respondent, based upon the enquiry report dated 15.06.2025 (Ex.P4) submitted by the 5th respondent. The petitioner was directed to submit the explanation within ten days. The petitioner submitted an explanation on 30.06.2025 (Ex.P2). Without considering the explanation, the 4th respondent passed the order impugned in the writ petition, withdrawing the cheque power for a period of six months. 3. An interim order was granted on 25.09.2025, suspending the proceedings impugned for a period of four weeks, and thereafter, the same is being extended from time to time. 4. A counter affidavit was filed on behalf of the 4th respondent. It was contended, inter alia, that the order impugned was passed by following the procedure and on a consideration of the report (Ex.P4) and explanation (Ex.P2) submitted by the petitioner. The petitioner filed the above writ petition without availing an effective alternative remedy under Rule 42 (2) of the Rules and eventually prayed to dismiss the writ petition. p. 4 SRS,J W.P.No.26318 of 2025 5. Heard Sri V.Vinod K. Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri P.Rajesh Kumar, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj for the respondents. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the 5th respondent failed to consider the explanation (Ex.P5) submitted by the petitioner, and the 5th respondent relied upon the statement of the complainant. He would also submit that the 4th respondent simply endorsed the report of the 5th respondent without giving any independent findings. In the show-cause notice, three allegations were set out, whereas in the impugned order, four mistakes/allegations were pointed out. He would also submit that a copy of the report dated 15.06.2025 was not furnished to the petitioner, enabling him to submit a proper explanation. Learned counsel further pointed out the discrepancy in the report of the 5th respondent vis-à-vis the date and stamp affixed on the report. 7. Per contra, learned Assistant Government Pleader would submit that the writ petition is not maintainable, since the petitioner had an effective alternative remedy of appeal as per Rule 42(2). He would also submit that the 4th respondent considered the report of the 5th respondent and recorded independent findings and eventually withdrew the cheque power for a period of six months. The petitioner did not complain during the hearing regarding the non-furnishing of the report dated 15.06.2025, and for the first time, the said contention was made in the affidavit. He would submit that the 4th respondent followed the procedure scrupulously and passed the order impugned. Page 5 of 6 SRS,J W.P.No.26318 of 2025 8. The point for consideration is whether the proceedings impugned are legally sustainable? 9. A perusal of proceedings issued by the 4th respondent, District Panchayat Officer, vide ROC.No.2887/2024-A2, dated 23.07.2025 (Ex.P1) implies that the proceedings issued as temporary measure, pending further inquiry, are traceable to the second proviso to Rule 42(1) of the Rules. In fact, in para 3 of the counter affidavit, it was pleaded that suspension of cheque drawing power, by the proceedings impugned, is only a precautionary measure, pending inquiry, and the petitioner was served with an inquiry report, before taking final action. Thus, the proceedings impugned, Ex.P1, in the facts and circumstances, in the opinion of this Court are traceable to the second proviso to Rule 42(1) of the Rules. Of course, as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, to attract the second proviso to Rule 42(1), no prior notice is required, since the proceedings, normally under the second proviso, as per the language, are temporary. However, as pointed out supra, though a notice was issued and an enquiry was conducted, in the peculiar facts of this case, the order impugned is traceable to the second proviso of Rule 42(1) of the Rules. 10. If the proceedings impugned are treated as final order, traceable to Rule 42(1) of the Rules, the same are liable to set aside since the inquiry report was not furnished to the petitioner. In para 3 of the counter, it was pleaded that the report was furnished along with the proceedings enabling the petitioner to submit the explanation. Thus, on this ground also, the proceedings impugned are not legally sustainable. Page 6 of 6 SRS,J W.P.No.26318 of 2025 11. This Court suspended the proceedings impugned Ex.P1, on 25.09.2025, and the same is subsisting as on today. 12. Given the facts and circumstances of the case, without going into various contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner, as well as the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj, this writ petition is disposed of with the following directions: i) The proceeding impugned, Ex.P1, is hereby set aside. ii) The petitioner shall submit an explanation within fifteen days from today. iii) Thereafter, respondent No.4 shall conduct an inquiry and pass a reasoned order as expeditiously as possible, strictly following the procedure mandated under Rule 42(1) of the Rules. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________________ JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI Date: 27.02.2026 IKN