Telangana High Court
WP/18530/2004 of M. Shankar, Vs The District Collector, on 29 December 2004
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY NINTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND FOUR PRESENT THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION NO : 18530 of 2004 Between: M. Shankar, S/o. M. Narsimha, Age:31 years, occ:Sarpanch. R/o.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY NINTH DAY OF DECEMBERTWO THOUSAND AND FOUR
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI
WRIT PETITION NO : 18530 of 2004
Between:
M. Shankar, S/o. M. Narsimha, Age:31 years, occ:Sarpanch. R/o. Cherlapally Village, Nalgonda Mandal & District.
AND
..... PETITIONER
1. The District Collector, Nalgonda, Nalgonda District.
2. R. Mangamma, w/o. Ramalingam 35 years, Upa Sarpanch, Cherlapallyvillage, Gram Panchayat Cherlapally, Nalgonda District. 9R2 isimpleaded as per Court order dated 26-11-2004 in WPMP NO.26051of 2004village, Gram Panchayat Cherlapally, Nalgonda District. 9R2 isimpleaded as per Court order dated 26-11-2004 in WPMP NO.26051of 2004
.....RESPONDENTS
Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in thecircumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased toissue a Writ, Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ ofMandamus declaring the action of the 1st respondent in issuing the impugnedproceedings No.491/04-A1(Pts.) dt: 25-09-2004 as arbitrary, illegal and violative ofArticle 14, 21 of the Constitution of India, consequently, set-aside the same as beingviolative of principles of Natural Justice.
Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.HARENDER PRASAD
Counsel for the Respondent No.1: GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ & RURAL DEV.
Counsel for the Respondent No.2: MR S. NIRANJAN REDDY.
The Court made the following :
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER:
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleaderappearing for the first respondent as well as the learned counsel appearing for the2[nd] respondent.
This writ petition is filed aggrieved by the proceedings of the first respondent dated25-9-2004, whereunder the petitioner, who is the Sarpanch of the Cherlapally GramPanchyat, was placed under suspension for a period of three months in exercise ofpowers under Section 249(6) of the Andhra Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act, 1994,observing that the five charges framed against him, prima facie, found to be true andappointing an Enquiry Officer to conduct regular enquiry into the said five charges.This court while directing the rule nisi, by order dated 14-10-2004 granted interimsuspension of the impugned order. By virtue of the said interim order, the petitioneris being continued in the office.
The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in response to the show causenotice dated 23-07-2004 received by the petitioner on 23-8-2004, he made arepresentation dated 04-09-2004 requesting the first respondent to grant 15 daystime for submitting an appropriate explanation. Without considering the said request,the first respondent straightaway passed the impugned order placing him undersuspension. The learned counsel submits that as a matter of fact, the petitioner wasready with the explanation but he was not afforded an opportunity to submit thesame and therefore, the impugned order is arbitrary, illegal and violative of theprinciples of natural justice.
On a perusal of the impugned order, it is clear that though a show cause notice wasissued, the impugned order was passed without considering the version of thepetitioner on the ground that he failed to submit his explanation. In the counter- affidavit filed on behalf of the first respondent, it is stated that the petitioner wasallowed 15 days time upto 19-09-2004 and the same was intimated to him by letterdated 20-09-2004, but he failed to avail the opportunity.
However, the petitioner disputes the same and states that no such communicationwas received by his granting extension of time.
Conclusion
This court cannot investigate into such disputed question of fact and no finding assuch can be recorded. However, the fact remains that the impugned order waspassed without taking into consideration the explanation of the petitioner. In thecircumstances, I am of the view that it would be appropriate to consider the matterafresh after taking into consideration the explanation of the petitioner.
Accordingly, the impugned order dated 25-9-2004, is set aside and the writ petitionis disposed of with a direction to consider the explanation of the petitioner filed alongwith this writ petition at page 32 of the material papers and to pass appropriateorders in accordance with law within a period of one week from the date of receipt ofa copy of this order.
Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs.
_________
29-12-2004
Note:
CC by two days.
(Bo)
sj
To
1. The District Collector, Nalgonda, Nalgonda District.
2. Two CCs to the Government Pleader for Panchayat Raj and RuralDevelopment, High Court Building, Hyderabad. (OUT)Development, High Court Building, Hyderabad. (OUT)
3. Two C. D. copies.
sj