S. SUNIL DUTT YADAV, J.

1. The petitioner, who is a member of the fourth respondent Vishwanathapura Gram Panchayat has sought to challenge the Government Order at Annexure-A dated 17.04.2018, whereby the petitioner has been removed from the post of 'Adhyaksha' of the said Gram Panchayat and his membership was cancelled pursuant to an inquiry initiated in exercise of the power under Section 43-A and 48(4) of the Karnataka Gram Swaraj and Panchayat Raj Act, 1993 (for short 'the Act').

2. The relevant facts that are made out are as follows:

M/s. Fortius Land Developers LLP had approached the Panchayat Development Officer of Vishwanathapura Gram Panchayat with a request to allot the civic amenity site Nos. 1 and 2 for the purpose of building a club house.

A General meeting was convened to consider the said proposals and it was resolved to seek approval of the Taluk Panchayat before proceeding further. Subsequently, a special meeting was also convened and it was resolved to allot the civic amenity sites to the developer after obtaining permission of the Taluk Panchayat.

It is stated that on 28.07.2016, the Taluk Panchayat permitted the Gram Panchayat to execute the Lease Deed and the same was executed on 15.09.2016. The lease amount was also deposited in a fixed deposit.

However, a show-cause notice came to be issued on 27.02.2017 calling upon the petitioner to show cause as to why action should not be initiated under Section 48 of the Act.

Eventually, the Lease Deed executed in favour of the developer came to be cancelled pursuant to the directions of the State Government on 05.12.2017. The emergency meeting of the Gram Panchayat had resolved to give effect to the Government Order. Pursuant to the said decision, the Panchayat Development Officer had requested the Sub-Registrar, Devanahalli Taluk to cancel the Lease Deed.

In response to the show cause notice, detailed reply was furnished by the petitioner.

The petitioner submits that proceedings were initiated by the Principal Secretary, Department of Rural Development and Panchayat Raj and that the only effective date of hearing was on 24.07.2017 and when time was sought for, adjournment was declined and the matter was posted for orders while providing for a week's time to enable the petitioner to file his written submissions.

3. The petitioner has contended that the inquiry is faulty, as the show cause notice is only as regards the proposed action under Section 48 of the Act and does not refer to the provision of Section 43A and hence on this ground itself, the impugned order passed under Section 43A of the Act requires to be set aside. It is further submitted that action under Section 43A envisages an inquiry which would include an opportunity of being heard and that, in the present case no sufficient opportunity has been afforded to the petitioner;

The petitioner has further contended that the only substantive opportunity afforded was when the matter was called on 24.07.2017, when the request for adjournment was turned down and the matter was posted for orders providing one week's time to file written arguments. Previously, inquiry was fixed on 22.05.2017 which came to be adjourned to 14.06.2017 and 24.07.2017, and it is only on the last of the dates that the Presiding Officer had conducted the proceedings.

As regards the merits of the matter, various contentions have been urged as a rebuttal to the allegations made.

As regards the allegation that the matter was not listed in the agenda for the purpose of discussion, it has been submitted that in the meeting on 28.06.2016, the matter was discussed and decision was taken. It is also submitted that the meeting in which the decision was taken, was conducted in accordance with the Karnataka Panchayat Raj (Conduct of Meetings of Gram Sabha) Rules, 1994, more particularly in adherence to Rule 4(3).

In respect of the allegation of misconduct, as regards the decision taken to lease out the civic amenity sites to the developer M/s. Fortiu