Allowed

Rapelli Gangadhar v. The Principal Secretary

Telangana HC8 Oct 2020WP/10866/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court set aside suspension proceedings initiated against a Sarpanch under Section 37(5) of the Telangana Panchayat Raj Act, 2018, for damaging public property, ruling such allegations did not fall within the section's scope and denying the requisite appeal remedy.

What did the court decide?

The impugned suspension proceedings are set aside, leaving it open to respondents to take lawful action against the petitioner.

Rapelli Gangadhar Vs The Principal Secretary — Service and Employment | Telangana HC (2020)

¶1

HIGH COURT FOR THE SI AT HYDERfJiDOF^TELANGANA lspecial Original Jurisdiction)

¶2

THURSDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA KODANDA RAM

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO: 1 0 866 0F 2020

¶6

Between:

¶7

Rapelli Gangadhar, S/o, Singaraiah Aged about. 36 years, Occ. Sarpanch Narsingapoor Village, R/o H.No.3-25, Narsingapoor Village, Ctiendurthi tr/andal, Rajanna^"Siicilla District, Telangana State

¶8

...PETIT|ONER

¶9

AND

¶10

The Principal Secretary, Department of Panchayat Raj and Rural Development, State of Telangana, Secretariat Building, Saifabad, Hyderabad

¶11

2, The District Collector, Rajanna Sircilla District, Telanagana State

¶12

The District Panchayath Officer, Rajanna Sircilla District, Sircilla, Telangana State

¶13

The ft/andal Parishad Development Officer, tr/andal Praja Parishad, Chendurthi l,4andal, Rajanna Sircilla District, Telangana State

¶14

Manchala Jyothi, D/o Mallesham Aged about. Not Known to the Petitioner, Occ.Panchayat Secretary of Narsingapoor Village, Chekkapalli Village, Vemulawada Rural lvlandal, Rajanna Sircilla District, Telangana State

¶15

Kasarapu Srinivas, S/o lVuttaiah Aged about. Not Known to the Petitioner, Occ. Upa Sarpanch of Narsingapoor Village, Chendurthi N/andal, Rajanna Sircilla District' Telangana state

¶16

...RES'.NDENTS

¶17

Petition under Article 226 of lhe Constitution of^{lndia prayingthat in the} circumstances stated in the affidavit filed^{therewith,the High Court may be pleased} to issue an appropriate writ, order^{or direction more particularly one in the nature of} writ of N/andamus declaring^{the action of the RespondentNo.2 in suspendingthe} petitioner vide Proceeding No.R1/474I2020-PAN,^{dated01 .07.2020as arbitrary,} illegal and runs contrary^{to the mandatory stipulationsof Telangana PanchayatRaj} Rci ZOI^g and besidei^{being violative of the Principlesof NaturalJustice and} consequently set^{aside the same}

¶18

IA NO: 1 OF 2020

¶19

PetitionunderSectionlSlCPCprayingthatinthecircumstancesstatedin the affidavit^{filed in supportof the petition,the High Court-m9Y^?e^pleasedto} suspend the^{operation ot tnu i'p'gned order in R1t47412020-PAN' dated} orltii Z6zO .t^{th6 2"0 respondent pending disposal of the abovewrit petition}

¶20

lA NO: 2 oF²⁰²⁰

¶21

B etwee n

¶22

lThePrincipalsecretary,DepartmentofPanchayat[aj,andRuralDevelopment.

¶23

3i[:,3Ei,,fll?',1$i'#:ffi^{$if::,'iiHtil'h:8]u1ii&8ru,':r:r"n,".} State .....Petitioners/^ResPondents

¶24

And

¶25

1 a:p.:lli,f,33?11[3J;^{?% i't'.i'.fii $:,".?.r?r"#;} iiliJiii?5i*itt,^{DiStrict,Telansanastate} '7,fi"J33b''1"30'x-r?ff3:!:i .Respondenu^petitioner

¶26

The Mandat Parishad Development officer,^{lvandal Praja Parishad, chendurtht} lvlandal, Rajanna Sircilla District, Telangana State

¶27

Manchala Jyothi, D/o Mallesham Aged about.^{Not Known to the Petltioner,} Occ.Panchdyat Secretary of Narsingapoor Village, Chekkapalli^Village, Vemulawadd Rural lr/andal, Rajanna Sircilla District, Telangana State

¶28

4, Kasarapu Srinivas, S/o Muttaiah Aged about. Not Known to the Petitioner, Occ. Upa Sarpanch of Narsingapoor Village, Chendurthi [,4andal, Rajanna Sircilla District, Telangana State

¶29

(Respondent Nos.2-4 are not necessary parties in this petition)

¶30

......Respondents/ Respondents

¶31

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 vacate the interim orders dated 271O712020 passed in lA. No.1/2020 in WP No. 10866/2020 and dismiss the above writ petition

¶32

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. RAM PRASAD TEEGALA

¶33

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 3:

¶34

GP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT

¶35

Counsel for the Respondent No.4: SRI G.NARENDER REDDy

¶36

S.C. FOR MPP/ GPP/ ZPP

¶37

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.s & 6: --

¶38

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶39

I.III| HON,J]L[ SRI.IT]S.I'ICE CHAT,I,A KODANDA RAM WRIT PI,ITI'I.ION No. 10866 of 2020 oRI)t.R:

¶40

ln this \drrit Pctition, pctitioner challenges proceedines datucl 01.07.2020 issr:cd by respondent No.2 - District Collecror, Ilajanna Sircilla, under Section 37(5) ofthe-l'clangana Panchalat Ra.j Act, 20 l8 (lbr short^'the Act'), relier'ing him liom the post of Sarpanch lor a period ol'six (6) rnonths.

¶41

Therc is rro disputc r.r'ith rcspect to the issuzrncc ol shcttr cirrr5c noiicc dated 17.06.20)0,^{sLrbnrissiouo{-erlllarration b}' the} pctitiorlcr olt 30.06.1020 atrd^{issltance o1'thcinlpugned} proccccl irtgs by' resporlclcnt^No.2.

¶42

At the or,rtset. it is to^{be r.roted that the alteged misconduct} on thc prirt of the^{petitioner does not lirll r'r'ithirlthe scopeo1'} Scction3T(l)(i)anc1(ir.1o1'theAcr,lbrr''iolatiorrol-r'vl-richalor.rc' tlrc ltitt crs^{unclcr Sccliorl 37(5) ol-thc Act can be inr"okeci'} llutcrer. thc^{allcgltirlrr lcr clleci against tllt'pclitiollcr'lts} lurclrtioncd^{in thc alolcsaid shorvctlLlsc lloticc' ntal' be notcd}

¶43

lrcrc'r-trtder

¶44

( irant l):ttlcilar lt ''Sri Il aPclli ( iungaclhar. Sat Pirrlcir' hld dc libcratc^lr \lrrnclal^{( lhe nbr-u thi} \arsitrgltl,oor ,.lcslrorctl tllc^{plitrllsrrhich arc plalrtcu in (lovcrllnlcill} r'(.|.,.^{l:rl'1. rl.rrit t' ll''t tttt I't'"-t't'I'''}

¶45

Section 37(l Xi)&(ii)^{ma;- be rrotcd lre rcutlder}

¶46

"37. (l) If in thc opinion ol'the l)islrict^(ollector the Sarpanclt.

¶47

(i) omitted or relirsed to carr) out the orclcrs of the District Collector or Commissioner or^{(ior,crnnrent} lbr^the proper u,orking of the concerncd Gram l)anchavatl or (ii) abuscd his position or the po$ers vested in hinr: \\

¶48

I Ior,r'cve r. the allcsation lcr cllcd against thc pctiti,rrrr_.r clestroving the alread-v planted saplings. in strict sense, cftrcs not lall under Section 37(l) (i) and (ii) ol'the Acr. Hou.el,er, it nra\ bc r.roted that one ol'thc firnctions r,r.hich is required trr be discharged b1 a Sarpanclt in ternts o['section 32( I )(1) is :rs uncicr:

¶49

''take up plantation and maintain Green coverage in the village.

¶50

Further, Section 37( I )(v) of the Act reads as Lrndcr:

¶51

"persistently defaulted in the performance of his functions and duties entrusted to him under the Act to the detriment of the functioning of the Gram Panchayat or has become incapable of such performance.,,

¶52

A perusal of Seoion 32( l)(fl reacl \ irh Secrion l7( I Xr ) oi, the Act, <sup>,oLlld sho,. th.t the aclio, .l.trrc Sarltarrch ,ta' l)rll us :r r.iolation under Semion 37(l)(v) fbr rrhich procecclinus couicl bc iritiated in tcrnrs o1'section 37(r) a.d,or,rdcr.Secti., i7(5).{. the Act.

¶53

¶54

C(R, J W P No 10866 ot 2020

¶55

Accordirrg ro Sccrion 37(lXiii) to (r,). rhe allegation of gr.ss .aiscor.rclLrct .r.thc' Sarpanch rlra), amourt [o eve, i,viting crinrinal action againsr hirn in allegedly destroying the public property.

¶56

[:r'ctr assuntin{.1 that thc allegatiorr leveliecl agairrst lhe pctitittner is true, lhe intputncd proceeclings is in violation of the stilt,tor' p.o'isio.s, as. thc said procccclings is appealablc undcr Scction 371(r.1 ol rhc .\ct. bur nor, Sccrion l-l I ol' rl.re ,{cr. as nrerrtioned in the intpLrgned proceedings.

¶57

ln that r icu ol'thc rrattcr. as lhc. allesation ol- rrisconducl on llrc part ol'the pctitioner docs tlot cotre ',r,ithirr the purvierv of Scction 37( lXi) antl (ii) o1'thc Act, thcrc is no orher alternative lirl this Court ercept to se1 asiclc the plocccdines intpugned.

¶58

Accordingly, thc irrpr-rgncd procccdings is set aside and this Writ Petition is allowed, however, leaving it open to the respondents to take action against the petitioner in accordance ',r ith lau,.

¶59

\'hilc parting uith this casc, it mar be noled that^{tl.tis Court} i: iroticing dar in and clar oLtt Lhat a^Iltrgc nlttllbcr^{ot'cascs arc} bcing lilcd bctbre it clucstiortirrg the^{orclcrs passedby the District} (.'ollcctors uncler Section 37 r'uithout beirl.e conscious of the scope ol'the provision, urtclcr^r,vhich, they^{arc reqttired to act, resulting} irr u'asting of time irt^{passirrg lengthl' ordcrs and thereafter,such}

¶60

orders^{are beingset aside b1'this Court on accoLlntof the fact that} they are^{not falling within the fcrnrcorners of lau' Probabll' this} is happening^{on account of the lact that the stattltor\ aLltiloritics} are^{placirrg over-reliancc on their suborclirtates 1br putlirrg r'rp ol} the note^{and sigrringthe orders blindll" uilhotttapplicaLionol-} rnind and^{without beingconscior-rsol tl.re scope of the port'cr"} ri hich they are^{exercisit.tg' As a tnatter cll fact' the scopc ol} enqrrirl" under^{Section 219(6) of the Act atlcl the poucrs ol'} suspension/removal^{of ol-ficebeare rs in Granl[)anchal'31 etc ' alc} explained in dctail^{in thc judgnlcnts ol'1hc (-ourtsin M' Karitha} v.'I'he Government^{ofAndhra Pradeshrl Janagamn} Shankaraiah v. Covernment^{of A.P.2; Yerneni Kusuma v'} ..^{GovernmentofA.P.t; and Maclasu ILavi '.Stateof} Telangana{, and the law declaled^{by this Cor-rrtil-r Ananth Rao} Deshpande v. State ol''I'elanganat^{u,,.1 tl,.- cotlrsc to bc lbllori ccl} r.ras also inclicatcd therein br pointing otlt the errors cctt-tttttitlcd, errors that mal bc conrmittccl b1 thc District^(lollcctors. lt^uoLrld be rvortl.ru'hilc lor the Districl Collcctors to str-rclv the pror isiorrs l<eeping in "'ieu thc guidance provided bl the Cor-rrts repcatcclll, so as to ellsLrrc that thel' appll the la.'r' correctlv irr the cascs coming belbre them r.r,hilc passing orders.

¶61

20 t0^(-i) Al.t)^l-io ':0ttitlat-o:-;t

¶62

'^{20 ro (6) Ar-D 73?}

¶63

'^{:o rs} 1s;^{nlo u:s} loay

¶64

t w p. No. l2?78 of202o

¶65

¶66

Yct a,.tlte.r aspcct, *, hich is reclLrircd to be stated, is rhat ri'hilc it is being routinel'stated that an appeal would lie 1o the (lranr Panchayat 1'ribunal r-rnder Section l4l of the Act r.i,ith rcspcct to the. orclels passcd Lrndcr Section 37( I ) or an intimation r"rrrdcr Section 37(2), appeal lies under Secriorr 37(6) of rhe Act, thcrc is uo appeal rentcdy' with respect to lhe orders nrade undcr Scction 37(5).^'l'hc sante is clear frurm a combined reading of Scction 37(6) read u irh Section l4l. Yer in all rhe cases roulinclv it is bcing nrcntioned that an appeal r,i.oLrld lie to thc (lranr Panchalat^'l ribLrnal. against thc sLrspension or-ders passed tundcl Scction i7(5) ol'tltc ,\ct. irhich is a ularing cxarrplc of' norr-applicltioir oltninrl on thc part ot'thc olJlcers concerned.

¶67

l'hc I'r lcsl-ronrlcrrt-[)rincipal Sccrctarr', sl-ral l exarnine thesc issLres arrd provide clear guidelines to all the District Collectors arrcl other ofl rcers ri ith necessarl, instructions to enable the rcspcctiVc District Collcctors to take notc ol'these issues.

¶68

Misccllaneous applications, il'anr pending, shall also stand closctl.'l hcrc shall bc rro olclcr lls t() cos1s.

¶69

SD/-^K.AM AJI ASSISTANT^REGI RAR //TRUE^COPY//

¶70

SECTION^OFFICER

¶71

one copy^{to *re Hffirfi,gi:Jlj;ilI3"-,::**x,'?'ANDA}

¶72

RAM

¶73

To liH{:iiiu,r*t##rifi#.:il}$'f"q}:+qx1'^{;{H':'"""'"'.-;}