SHANKAR S/O SHANKRAPPA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY RURAL DEVELOPMENT AND PANCHAYAT RAJ DEPARTMENT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellant is the petitioner in Writ Petition No.207513 of 2017 challenging the order Annexure-J dated 04th October 2017 passed by the first respondent-Principal Secretary to Rural Development and Panchayat Raj Department and had made a prayer to set aside the same and to direct the respondents to continue him as Adhyaksha of Nagaidali Grama Panchayat, Chincholi Taluk, Kalaburagi District till he completes his tenure.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are that, the appellant is the resident of Kallu village, Chincholi Taluk, Kalaburagi District and he was elected as President of Nagaidalayi Grama Panchayath of Chincholi Taluk, Kalaburagi District from June 2015 to June 2017. On 07th May 2016, the Audit Department submitted report regarding the audit conducted for the period 2014-15 and 2015-16. Based on the said audit report, the Regional Commissioner, Kalaburagi recommended for initiation of disciplinary proceedings against the persons who are involved in the irregularities of execution of works as noted in the audit report. The Regional Commissioner, vide his letter dated 10th June 2016 recommended to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner-the appellant herein. He has narrated about nine instances, upon which it was directed to proceed with an enquiry. The Zilla Panchayat, after receipt of the communication made by the Regional Commissioner, has in turn directed the Assistant Commissioner by letter dated 25th June 2016 to make a report on the points raised by the Regional Commissioner. The Assistant Commissioner, had only investigated the matter by taking the statements made by the petitioner to the Panchayat Development Officer on nine allegations made in the recommendation letter of the Regional Officer and submitted report to the Zilla Panchayat from whom he had received communication. The villagers also made a complaint to the Assistant Commissioner of Sedam Sub-Division to initiate action. Upon receipt of report made by the Assistant Commissioner, the Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Panchayat Kalaburagi recommended for initiation of action against the petitioner-the appellant herein under Section 43(A) and 48(4) of the Karnataka Panchayat Raj Act, 1993 (for short hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'.) The second respondent-Zilla Panchayat also forwarded the report made by the Assistant Commissioner in this regard. Thereafter, the first respondent-Principal Secretary, Rural Development and Panchayat Raj Department issued a show cause notice to the appellant-petitioner on 17th October 2016 alleging that as per the report of the Assistant Commissioner and the recommendation made by the Regional Commissioner, there are irregularities in execution of the works and for more than ten months no developmental works have been taken up and it us further alleged that the petitionerappellant herein has created bogus vouchers. In response to the show-cause issued by the first respondent dated 17th October 2016, the appellant-petitioner submitted a detailed reply refuting the allegations made in the show-cause notice and also made a prayer to drop the proceedings. Upon considering the reply made by the appellant-petitioner, the first respondent directed the appellant-petitioner to appear before him for enquiry. The appellant had appeared before him on 09th February 2017 and on all the dates whenever the hearing was adjourned. The enquiry that was fixed on 18th March 2017 stood adjourned due to the absence of Presiding Officer and the next date was on 17th April 2017. It was directed to the second respondent-Chief Executive Officer of the Zilla Panchayat to submit a report on or before 28th February 2017 but no report was submitted.

(3.) Before the writ court the petitioner-appellant had taken a specific ground that, for invoking Sections 43(A) and 48(4) of the Act and before removing and Member, he/she should be provided with an opportunity of being heard and after such enquiry, as it deems necessary and if such member has been found guilty of misconduct or has disgracefully conducted or has become incapable of performing his/her duties as a Member, he/she shall be discharged of his/her duties. It is the further ground that when it was observed that there were about nine lapses of serious irregularities committed by the petitionerappellant and Zilla Panchayat was directed to involve in the matter; the Assistant Commissioner was further directed to enquire into; and the first respondent after accepting the report from the Zilla Panchayat and from the Assistant Commissioner, has issued show-cause notice. But, in compliance of Section 43(A) of the Act, no opportunity has been provided to the petitioner-appellant and he has not been heard in this regard. Hence, the impugned action of the first respondent in issuing Annexure-J is violation of Section 43(A) of the Act.