2018 Supreme(Kar) 1144
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA KALABURAGI BENCH
L.NARAYANA SWAMY, K.N. PHANEENDRA, JJ.
Shri Shankar S/o Shankrappa - Appellant
Versus
State of Karnataka represented by its Principal Secretary Rural Development and Panchayat Raj Department Vikas Soudha Bangalore and Ors - Respondent
Writ Appeal No.1388 of 2018 (LBRES)
Decided On : 06-08-2018
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Shri Vijaykumar, Advocate
For the Respondent:Shri K.M. Ghate, AGA Shri Ameet Kumar Deshpande, Huleppa Heroor, Advocate
Headnote:
Constitution of India,1950 - Article 226 and 14 - Karnataka Panchayat Raj Act, 1993 - Section 43(A) and 48(4) - execution of works as noted in the audit report - bogus vouchers - allegations made in the recommendation letter of the Regional Officer and submitted report to the Zilla Panchayat from whom he had received communication - alleged that the petitioner-appellant 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 - 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 – Held, President and the irregularities done in the 13th Financial period does not pertain to his tenure and hence is not applicable to the appellant-petitioner. These are the defence taken by him which goes to the root, but the first respondent Principal Secretary has not taken any serious note of it This is nothing but arbitrariness on the part of the first respondent and violation of Article 14 of Constitution of India. When such being the case, this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has extraordinary power to interfere. In the facts and circumstances of this case, we hold that the impugned action is contrary to Sections 43(A) and 48(4) of the Act and violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Hence, we hold that the impugned action is bad in law. Annexure-J dated 04th October 2017 passed by the first respondent is set aside. Petitioner to continue as Adhyaksha of Nagaidlayi Grama Panchayat till his term is over - Appeal/petition are allowed
JUDGMENT :
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.
The learned single Judge, by order dated 07th March, 2018 dismissed the writ petition holding that, the impugned action of the respondent is appropriate which appears to be just and proper. Against the said order, this intracourt appeal is preferred.
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 petitioner-appellant 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.
Thereafter, the matter was adjour