Allowed

Gurka Kumar v. The State of Telangana And 5 Others

Telangana HC7 Oct 2020WP/9988/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a writ petition challenging a suspension order against a Gram Panchayat Sarpanch. The court held that the impugned order was illegal as it failed to specify the suspension period, which is required under Section 37(5) of the Telangana Panchayat Raj Act, 2018, directing the response authority to pass fresh orders within six weeks.

What did the court decide?

Impugned proceedings dated 27.10.2020 set aside pending inquiry and directing respondents to pass fresh orders within six weeks.

Gurka Kumar Vs The State of Telangana And 5 Others — Service and Employment | Telangana HC (2020)

¶1

HIGH COURT FOR THE^{STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD} (SPecial Original J urisdiction)

¶2

WEDNESDAY, THE SEVENTH^{DAYOF OCTOBER} TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA^KODANDARAM

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO: 9988 OF 2020

¶6

Between:

¶7

Gurka Kumar, S/o. G. Bikshapathi, Aged^{about 41 years' Occ.Agriculture} (Sarpanch) R/o. Aliyabad Village, Shameerpet [,4anclal lr/edchal^{- IValkajgiri District,} TS

¶8

...PETITIONER

¶9

AND

¶10

The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Panchayat Raj and^Rural Development Department, T.S. Secretariat, Saifabad, Hyderabad

¶11

The District Collector, tVedchal^- lValkajgiri District, TS

¶12

The District Panchayat Officer, lVledchal^- Arlalkajgiri District, TS

¶13

The lt4andal Panchayat Officer, Shameerpet l\4andal ttrledchal^- lValka.igiri District, TS

¶14

Aliyabad Gram Panchayat Aliyabad Village, Shameerpet l,4andal lt/edchal^-

¶15

It/alkajgiri District, TS Rep. by its Panchayat Secretary

¶16

G. Prabhakar Reddy, Sio. G. Bal Reddy Aged about 42 years, Occ. Upa- Sarpanch R/o Aliyabad Village, Shameerpet [t4andal, [,4ed cha l-lvla lkalgiri District, TS

¶17

...RESPONDENTS

¶18

Petition under Article 226 of lhe Constitulion of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the Hiqh Court may be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF TVANDAIVUS declaring the action of the respondents in issuing the Proceedings No 180/2020 - B1 (Pts) dated 2710612020 under Sec.37(5) of T.S. Panchayat Raj Act, 2018, suspending the petitioner from the Office of Sarpanch of Aliyabad Gram Panchayat, and appointing the 6lh respondent Upa-Sarpanch lo exercise the powers and perform the functions of the Sarpanch of Aliyabad Grain Panchayat of NIPP, Shameerpet, I,4edchal-N,4alkajgiri District and also appointing 4th respondent l,4andal Panchayat Officer, tt4PP, Shameerpet as joint signatory authority along with the signature of the Upa-Sarpanch, without issuing any prior notice under Sec.37 (5) of T.S. Panchayat Raj Act, 2018 is illegal, arbitrary and against the terms of Sec.37 of T.S. Panchayat Raj Act, 2018, against the principles of natural justice and also further violation of Article 14 of Constitution of lndia and consequently set aside the same.

¶19

lA NO: 1 OF 2020

¶20

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 thf operation of Proceedings No.180/2020-81 (pts) dated 2z10612020 issued by the 2nd respondenl District Collector, IVedchal - Ir,4alkajgiri District and djrect lhe respondents to allow the Petitioner to continue as Sarpanch of Aliyabad Gram panchayat, Shameerpet lr,4andal. l,4edchal A,4alkajgiri District, pending disposal of the above Writ Petition.

¶21

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI K. PRADEEp REDDy Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1 to 4: Ms. A. SUNITHA,

¶22

AGP FOR PANCHAYAT RAJ & RURAL DEVELOPMENT Counsel for the Respondent No.5: SRI G. NARENDER REDDy,

¶23

STANDING COUNSEL FOR GRAM PANCHAYAT Counsel for the Respondent No.6: NONE AppEARED

¶24

The Court at the stage of admission made the following: ORDER

¶25

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA KODANDA RAM

¶26

WRIT PETITION No.9988 ot 2020

¶27

ORDER:

¶28

ln this writ petition, petitioner prays for declaring the proceedings daled 27.06.2020 issued by respondent No 2-District Collector, Medchal-lr/alkajg iri, suspending him from the Office of Sarpanch, Aliyabad Gram Panchayat. until further orders anci appointing respondent No.6 Upa Sarpanch to exercise the powers of Sarpanch and respondent No.4 as^joint signatory along with the signature of the Upa Sarpanch, as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the provisions of the Telangana Panchayat Raj Act, 2018 (for sho( 'the Act'), and consequently, direct the respondents to continue him as Sarpanch.

¶29

Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the impugned proceedings are in violation of Section 37(5) of the Act, according to which, the period of suspension cannot exceed more than six months and it cannot be for an indefinite^period. He also contends that there is violation of one of the requisites^{i.e.. non-issuance of} notice proposing to suspend him from the^{Officeof Sarpanch, which} is mandatory in terms of the first^{proviso to Section 37(5) of the Act.}

¶30

On the other hand, [\Is A.Sunitha.^{learned Assistant} Government Pleader, while supporting^{the impugnedproceedings,} would submit that as^per the show cause^{notice dated21 .03 2020} issued under Section 37(1Xi) and^{(iv) of the Act, the petitioner was} alleged to have mis-utilised a sum of^{Rs.32,39,995/-. She would} further submit that in response^{to the said show cause notice, the} petitioner submitted a vague explanation seeking certain^records.

¶31

CKR.J W P No 9988 of 2020

¶32

which were, in fact, furnished to him. According to^{her, by the} impugned order, respondent No 2, having considered the explanation submitted by the^{petitioner,had put him on suspension} until further orders, invoking Section 37⁽⁵⁾ of the Act.

¶33

As can be seen from the material on record, the^petitioner was issued show cause notice by respondent No 2 invoking Section 37(1Xi) and (iv) of the Act. Section 35(5) of the Act can be invoked for the enquiry to be made in relation to the matters falling within Section 37(1) (i) and (ii) of the Act. Pending enquiry, in the process of gathering rnformation, which is termed as^'pending investigation' with respect to the allegations, respondent No.2 has power to suspend, however, such suspension cannot be for more than six monlhs. that too after issuing a specific show cause notice. ln the opinion of respondent No.2, continuatron of the petitioner in the Office of Sarpanch would be prejudicial to either investigation or enquiry, and such opinion has to be recorded by respondent No 2 after issuing notice to the petitroner.

¶34

ln the present case, while the show cause notice dated 21 .032020 mentions about the enquiry under Section 37(1)(i) and (iv) of the Act. there is no mention with respect to Section 37(5) and more particularly, a reading of the show cause notice indicates that the same is only initiation of the proceedings for violation of the provisions of Section 37(1)(i) and (iv) of the Act. Further, maximum period of suspension can be for a period of six months and non-mentioning of the suspension period also would vitiate the order.

¶35

CKR J W P Na 9988 ol 2020

¶36

While construing the provisions under the Andhra Pradesh Scheduled Commodities (Regulation and Distribution by Card System) Order, 1973, this Court held that non-mentroning of suspension period would vitiate the order of suspension lt may be borne in mind, suspension under Section 37(5) of the Act is not a measure of punishment, but it is only required to be made to facilitate investigation into the allegations against the petitioner with respect to the charges that may be framed agarnst him in terms of Section 37(1) of the Act

¶37

ln those circumstances, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned proceedings is set aside. Respondent No.2 is directed to pass fresh orders after issuing notice to the petitioner under Section 37(5) of the Act. This entire exercise shall be completed within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order

¶38

Miscellaneous Petitions. if any pending, shall stand closed

¶39

There shall be no order as to costs

¶40

,TRUE COPY'

¶41

sD/-K.SA!lESHt ASSTSTANT R#)TSTRAR

¶42

SECTIO\ OFFICER

¶43

To,

¶44

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

¶45

The District Collector, lVledchal - Malkajgiri District, TS

¶46

The District Panchayat Offrcer, Medchal - Malkajgiri District, TS

¶47

The tt4andal Panchayat Officer, Shameerpet Mandal lt4edchal - Malkajgiri District, TS

¶48

The Panchayat Secretary, Aliyabad Gram Panchayat Aliyabad Village, Shameerpet Mandal Medchal - Malkajgiri District, TS

¶49

One CC to Sri. K. Pradeep Reddy, Advocate [OPUC]

¶50

One CC to Sri. G. Narender Reddy SC for Gram Panchayat IOPUCI

¶51

B. Two CCs to GP for Panchayat Raj & Rural Development, High Court for the State of Telangana. [OUT]

¶52

Two CD Copies Prk \ l--

HIGH COURT

DATED:07/10/2020

ORDER

WP.No.9988^{oI 2020}

1HE SrA r4:
4-
t) 22 0CI2m az
,+
*
.:^ .r:rT c rrE-Q

¶58

Allowing^{the WP'} without^costs'

¶59

2i.

Gurka Kumar v. The State of Telangana And 5 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gurka Kumar v. The State of Telangana And 5 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dubba Sunitha Vs The State of Telangana

Smt. Md. Razia.Bee Vs The State of Telangana

Madharapu Taravva , Tara Vs The Telangana State Election Commission and 5 others

Boddu Kishan Vs The State of Telangana

Yella Lachireddy Vs The State of Telangana

M/s. Tharu and Sons Vs Union of India Ministry of Railways