RATHNAMMA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER , when elected as 'Upadhyaksha' of the 2nd respondent Grama Panchayat is said to have illegally done away with four pipes belonging to Grama Panchayat to 'Devastanada Gudigowdaru' by creating Minutes of Meeting dated 26.12.2011, following which a notice was issued, to show cause as to why she should not be removed from the Membership of Grama Panchayat on charges of misconduct in terms of section 48[4] and 43A of the Karnataka Panchayat Raj Act, 1993, for short Act'.

(2.) PETITIONER responded to the show cause notice by a reply stating that the four pipes were handed over to Grama Panchayat by A. Nagaraj, Junior Engineer, Kadur, in charge of the pipeline work in Ward No. 1 of Hirenellur Grama Panchayat limits, stating that they were old, unwanted pipes. According to the petitioner, those four pipes were given to 'Devastanada Gudigowdaru' in the Meeting of the Grama Panchayat held on 26.12.2011, when petitioner was a stand by 'President' [Incharge President] on the basis of a requisition dated 18.12.2011 of Sri Ere Beeralingeshwara Temple Committee, expressing the need for such pipes for the Temple. The Executive Officer of the Grama Panchayat is said to have inspected the four old and unwanted pipes and instructed the Grama Panchayat to dispose of the same by way of auction, in accordance with law, which was accordingly held on 19.1.2012, whence one H.B. Puttappa, Chairman of the Committee of Ere Beeralingeshwara Temple, purchased the same for Rs. 430/ - and deposited the said sum to the Government on 12.1.2012. Therefore, it was contended that there was no illegality in the proceedings for disposal of the said four pipes.

(3.) ALTHOUGH learned Counsel submits that the petitioner, when subjected to criminal prosecution, after an investigation, when no case was made out, a 'B' report when filed the case is closed, is unacceptable for the very simple reason that the proceeding u/s. 43A of the 'Act', relating to removal from membership does not require strict proof of evidence over the charge while the degree of proof is one of preponderance of probabilities, not akin to criminal prosecution.