S. Amruth Rao S/o. Sri Ramappa v. 1. The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI M. BHARATH SHAH, REPRESENTING SRI D. LINGA RAO Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR SERVICES - ll The Court made the following: ORDER /l I// THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE PULU\ I(ARTHTK WRIT PETITION lTRl No.1905 of 20L7 ORDER: This Writ Petition (TR) is frled challenging the impugned termination proceedings No.1560/2012/A1-fts., dated 15.10.2013 issued by respondent No.2, ancl consequently, to direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner into serwice rvith all consequential benefrts.

2. Heard Sri M. Bharath Shah, learned counsel, representing Sri D. Linga Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, and learned Governmcnt Pleadcr [or Servrccs-l[, appearing on behalf of the respondents.

3. Learned counsel lbr the petitioner submits that tl1e petitioner was appointed as a Panchayat Secretary on contract basis, w.e.f., O1.08.2003. However, whilc he was continuously working as such, anticipating regularization ol his services on pal with the individuals appointed along with him, crn 15. 1O.20 13, respondent No.2 has communicated the impugned procecdings, tcrminating the serviees of t}re petitioner, basing on a complaint lodged iigainst the petitioner before the Andhra Pradesh Lokayuktha, Hyderabad. It is also stated in the impugned proceedings that his performancc was unsatisfactory and that he had violated the terrns and conditions of :tgreement, and also despite the issuance of a shou,-cause notice, no explanation was submitted by him. It is submittcd I 2 W.P.(TR).No. 19OS oJ 201 7 that there was no single incident or allegation against the petitioner during his tenure as Panchayat Secretary, and thus, it is not known to the petitioner on which basis, respondent No.2 arrived at such a conclusion, resulting in termination of his services.

4. lrarned counsel ihas drawn the attention of this Court torvards the alleged irregularities that purportedly formed tl:c basis for termination of the petitioner's services, and the samc are extracted hereundcr:

1. "As seen from the audit reports nO7 -O8 paid Rs. 13,000/- towards staff salaries without obtaining prior permission from competent authorities for the year 2OO7-O8.

2. An amount of Rs.5,27,OOO/- has been drawn from B.R.G.F. funds and the Ex-Sarpanch and Panchayat Secretary has to producc the M.B. for ttre said amount.

3. The audit report for thc year 2006-07 is not submitted for which defects were not frnd out and the report rnay bc callcd for. "

5. [t is contcnded that the frrst allegation, whictr pertains to paymcnt o[ staff salaries, cannot be termed as misconduct, as the Gram Panchayat's works will be sanctioned by passing of resolutions, and as a Panchayat Secretary, the petitioner's role is only limited to maintain a record of the resolutions passed by the Gram Panchayat. Further, the petitioner was never entrusted with any audit duties. Hence, the third allegation also cannot be terrrrcd as misconduct. It is further submitted that the petitioner was also never assigned with the duties of preparation arrd 7/ 4 /i I 3 PK, J w. P. (R). No. 1 90 s of 2 o 1 7 maintenance of Measurement Books (MB), and usually, in a Gram Panchayat, the Executive Authority and the concerned Assistant Engineer would be responsible for maintaining the Measurement Books (MB). Therefore, the second allegation is also baseless as the petitioner only appended his counter signature and has no role to play in tlle above matter.

6. It is further submitted that the petitioner was informed that the entire proceedings were set in motion at the instance of one Mr. P. Ravinder, who preterred a complaint before the Lokayul<tha. However, while the petitioner was in the process of securing the information and copies of tJle said complaint, a Preliminary Enqurry was allegedly conducted behind the petitioner's back and also a Report. is alleged to have been submitted by the Mandal Parishad Development OIEcer, Sangareddy District, on the basis of which, respondent No.2 has issued the present impugred termination orders. However, l-ro copies of the said report were furnished to the petitioner. It is further submitted that the lokayuktha has only directed the auttrorities to cxpedite the enquiry and to finaliz.e the I i same, but thc samc would not authorize the authorities to act in an arbitrary manne r and tcrminatc the selviccs of the petitioner. It is further submitted that the petitioner is not only entitled for reinstatement but also for reg,larization of his services o, pa. with the individuals appointed \ 4 PK, J W.P.[R).N?. 1 9OS of 20 1 7 along with him in the year 2003. As such, only with a view to deny the said benefit to the petitioner, the respondents have terminated his services. Therefore, it is prayed to allow the present writ petition by setting aside the impugned termination proceedings dated 15.10.2013, with all consequential benelits.

7. Per contra, lcarned Government Pleader app€aring on beha-lf of the respondents, while admitting that the petitironer was appointed as Panchayat Secrctary on contract basis on 01.08.2003 for a fixed remuneration of Rs.2,00O/-, submits that the Registrar of Lokayuktha, Hyderabad, vide letter dated 15.O6.2012, requested to submit a report on the petition filed by one Mr. P. Ravinder with regard to the misappropriation of the Gram Panchayat, SFC and 13ft Finance funds by the Panchayat Secretary and Ex-Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat, Nagdhar of Kalhcr Mandal. Therefore, tJ:e Divisional Panchayat OIIicer, Sangareddy, conducted an enquiry and submitted his report vide l,r.No.27 l20l2lAl- Fts., dated 07.12.2012 rccording certain irregularities by the Ex-Sarpanch and Panchayat Secretary, and the said report \ras communicated to the Lokayrrktha vidc Lr.No.156O/20L21A2-Pts,, dated 07.12.2012- Subsequently, the Registrar of Lokayuktha, vide letter .dated' L8.L2.2O12, directed the District Panchayat OIfrcer, Medak at Sangareddy, to expedite the enquiry against the Ex-Sarpanch and the p€titioner herein and to I /I 5 PK, J W. P. (rR). No. 1 9OS of 20 1 7 fiiaTlzr' the same at the earliest, and to submit compliance by 07.03.2013. As such, a show-cause notice dated 04.03.2013, was issued to tl:e petitioner, calling for his explanation as to why his services shall not be terminated. However, despite acknowledging the receipt of said notice on

05.03.2013, the petitioner did not submit any explanation' In spite of the same, another opportunity was alforded to the petitioner by issuing a second show-cause notice dated 18.07.2O 13, the receipt of which was acknowledged by the petitioner on 23.07.2O13, but no explanation has been provided. It is further submitted that as per the Andhra Pradesh Panchayat

8. Raj (Amendment) Act, 2OO2, (ll for clause (12) shall be substituted with Executive Authority', which means the Panchayat SecretarJr. Therefore, the.petitioner is fully responsible for maintaining the Measurement Books (MB) and he has also counter signed in the amount drawn from B.R.G.F. funds column- Further, the petitioner is also responsible for maintenance of tJ:e Gram Panchayat Records as per his job chart, but he has failed to produce the audit report for the year 2006-07 to tJle enquiry officer. Therefore, since it is established that the petitioner has violated the terms and conditions of the agreement of service and due to unsatisfactory performance, in terms ol the orders issued by ttre Government in G.O.Ms.No. 148 dated 06.05.2003, the services of the petitioner were 6 PI< J W.P.(IR).No. 1 9OS of 20 I 7 rightly terminated by respondent No.2 vide proccedings dated 15.10.2013. Therefore, it is prayed to dismiss the prcsent writ petition. g. This Court has taken note of the rival subrnissions made by the learned counsel for respective parties and perused the material on record.

10. Adrmttedly, while the petitioner was working as Paachayat Secretary on contract basis, respondent No.2 issued tlre present impugned proceedings No.t560/2O12lA1-Pts., dated 15.102013, terminating the services of thc petitioner. As can be seen from the record, the said termination order was passed, basing on the letter addressed by thc Registrar of Lok Adalat dated 15.06.2O 12, wherein, a copy of the complaint from one Mr. Mr. P. Ravindcr, alleging misappropriation of the Gram Panchayat, SFC and 13th Finance F\rnds by the Ex-Sarpanch and the Panchayat Secretary, who is the petitioner herein. Thereafter, the Divisional Panchayat Ofhcer, Sargareddy, conducted an enquiry and submitted his report vide ktter No.27 /2O12/A1-Pts., dated 07.12.2012, observing certain irregularities. As such, a show-cause notice vide No.156O/2O l2lA2-Pts., dated 04.03.2013, was issued calling for his explanation on the following irregularities:

1. "As seen from thc audit reports 2OO7 -Oa paid Rs.13,000/- towards staff salaries without obtaining prior permission from competent authorities for the year 20O7-O8. I / t 7 PK, J w.P.(IR).No. 1 gos of 20 I 7

2. An amount of Rs.5,27,000/- has been drawn from B.R.G.F. funds and the Ex-Sarpanch and Panchayat Secretary has to produce the M.B. for the said amount.

3. The audit report for the year 2006-07 is not submitted for which defects were not find out and the report may be called lor."

11. The petitioner acknowledged the receipt of said notice on

02.03.2013, but failed to offer his explanation. In spite of ihe same, he was alforded another opportunity and a second show-cause notice vide No.1560/20f 2 /A2-Pts., dated 18.07.2013 was also issued to tJle petitioner, calling for his explanation. Horvever, once again, in spite of acknowledging the receipt of said notice on 23.07.2013, the petitioner has not submitted any explanation. L2. For better appreciation of the case on hand, this Court deems it apposite to refer to the terms and conditions for appointment of Panchayat Secretaries on contract basis, more particularly, condition No.S, issued in Annexure-Il of G.O.Ms.No. 148, Panchayat Raj & Rural Development (Mdl.II) Department, dated 06.05.2003, which reads as under: "5) If the performance of the Panchayat Secretar)r appointed on contract basis is found not satisfactory tiuring the contract period, OR if their services are found not required, their services will be terrninated at any time without assigning any reasons thereof;" 8 PK, J W.P.(TR). No. 19OS of 20 17 \

13. From tirc above, it is unequivocally clear tlrat the services of a Panchayat Secretary appointed on contract basis rnay be terminated if his services are found unsatisfactory or not required. Admittedly, in ttre case on hand, the petitioner was charged with serious allegations of misappropriation of funds, and also, in spite of alfording a couple of opportunities by way of issuaacc of two show-cause notices, he failed to offer any explanation. Therefore, this Court is not inctned to grant any relief to the petitioner.

14. For the aJoresaid reasons, this Court finds no merit in the present writ petition, and it is thereforc liablc to be dismissed.

15. Accordingly, the Writ Petition (TR) is dismissed. Miscellaneous applications, if any, pending in this Writ Petition (TR), shall stand closcd. No costs. SD/.M. NAGAMANI ISTANT REG To //TRUE COPY// N OFFICER

1. One CC to SRI D. LINGA RAO, Advocate [OPUCI 2. fwo CCs to GP for Services-ll, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad. [OUT]

3. Two CD Copies MP BS e? HIGH COURT DATED:1010912025 'HE S L Y i-1 :. :a..t ,. ? { JAI{ 2026 () t t I frr ?1-- r.i:._. .:-/' _.-i/' ORDER WP(TR).No.1905 ot 2017 DtsMtssrNG THE WRIT PETTTION (TR) WITHOUT COSTS 5tr 6--0(-L<