D. Venkat Reddy v. The District Collector, Nalgonda & Ors.

Shri M. Gangaram, District Panchayat Officer, it has been averred that the petitioner had not executed any work in furtherance of allocation of funds under JRY and he has filed this petition to stultify the action initiated by the department. In paragraphs 3, 4 and 6 of his affidavit, Shri M.Gangaram has averred as under: “3. In reply to para Nos.5 and 6 of the affidavit, it is submitted that as stated supra the alleged progress report does not specify the particulars of the work. It is further submitted that the letter No.P/34/1992, dt.16.9.1993 has been issued by the Mandal Development Officer on a representation by the petitioner and not on his own. The contention of the petitioner that the Assistant Engineer concerned has certified the progress report prepared by Mandal Development Officer is false. Though the petitioner did not execute even a single work during the period 1989-1992, but keep on submitting letters for the recording of M.Books and the letters issued by the Mandal Development Officer to the Engineering Department is nothing but forwarding the request of the petitioner on humanitarian grounds. None of the letters specifically states that the petitioner has executed the work under SGRY funds before passing the order of removal by the District Collector. Basing on the direction made in G.O.Rt.No.776, dt.8.6.1994 issued by the Government, the District Collector has issued a letter on 22.6.1994 asking petitioner herein to furnish the details or any records available the misappropriation of Rs.2,95,000/- JRY funds to the District Panchayat Officer within 15 days. The petitioner herein did not file any reply to the said show cause notice dt.22.6.1994, the alleged reply filed along with the material papers is nothing but a in connection with fabricated document. It is further submitted that the contention of the petitioner that the District Panchayat Officer also written a letter on 3.1.1995 to the Executive Engineer requesting to issue necessary instructions to the Assistant Engineer for recording of M.Books is again nothing but forwarding representation of the petitioner to the Executive Engineer, Panchayat Division, Miryalaguda, and requested it measured and check to get Executive Engineer measured. But the District Panchayat Officer never confirm that the petitioner has executed the work as claimed by him. Similarly, another letter dt.6.2.1995 was also forwarded with similar request.

4. In reply to para 8 of the affidavit, it is submitted that the letter dt.27.4.1995 alleged to have been submitted along with few M.Books in the office of the District Panchayat Officer is a fabricated letter to cover up the lapses, petitioner. illegalities committed by irregularities,

6. In view of the facts and circumstances, it has been clear that the petitioner herein has misappropriated a sum of Rs.2,95,000/-. He has created this record by filing representation before the various authorities without there being any substance in it.” During pendency petition, notice dated 1.11.1997 was issued by Mandal Revenue Inspector, Mungala recovery of a sum of Rs.2,95,900/- from the petitioner by treating the same as land revenue for the purposes of Section 150 of the Andhra Pradesh Gram Panchayat Act, 1964. However, the same could not be executed on account of interim order dated 5.12.1997 passed by the Court in WPMP.No.38788 of 1997. At the commencement of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner made a request that the case may be adjourned to enable his client to file rejoinder to the counter of the respondents, copy of which was made available to him only on 28.10.2006. Ordinarily, we would have accepted the request of the learned counsel and adjourned the case, but keeping in view the fact that the matter has remained pending for last more than 11 years and the action initiated by the concerned authority for recovery of the public money has remained stultified due to the interim order passed by the Court, we do not find any justification to adjourn the case, more so, because the petitioner did not seek amendment of the writ petition for challenging the legality of notice dated 1.11.1997 issued by the Mandal Revenue Inspector. In our considered view, in the matters involving recovery of public dues, the concerned authorities should have freedom to finalise the proceedings and pass appropriate order. The person, who may feel aggrieved by such action, can challenge decision/order by availing appropriate legal remedy or by filing petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. However, there can be no justification for the Court’s interdiction at the threshold of the proceedings or before finalization thereof. Hence, the writ petition is disposed of with the direction that the concerned authority should finalise the proceedings pending against the petitioner within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Needless to say that before finalization of the proceedings and passing any adverse order, the petitioner should be given reasonable opportunity to defend himself. It is also made clear that if the petitioner feels aggrieved by the final order, then he shall be free to avail departmental or legal remedies, if any available. G.S.SINGHVI, CJ C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY, J

02.11.2006