- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47370 WP No. 2350 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO.2350 OF 2023 (LB-RES) BETWEEN: SMT. RADHAMMA W/O PADMANABHA REDDY AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, R/A KADIRAMPALLI VILLAGE BALTMARI POST, SRINIVASAPURA TALUK KOLAR DISTRICT-563134 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. RAHUL S REDDY, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF RURAL DEVELOPMENT AND PANCHAYAT RAJ, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560 001 2. THE KARNATAKA UPALOKAYUKTA, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA, MULTI STORIED BUILDING DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU-560001 3. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR AND AUTHORISED CHIEF SECRETARY (GRAMA PANCHAYAT) DEPARTMENT OF RURAL DEVELOPMENT AND PANCHAYAT RAJ MULTI STORIED BUILDING, 3RD FLOOR, DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU-560001 Digitally signed by SUMA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47370 WP No. 2350 of 2023 4. THE REGIONAL COMMISSIONER, OFFICE OF THE REGIONAL COMMISSIONER, BANGALORE DIVISION, 2ND FLOOR, BMTC BUILDING, K.H. ROAD SHANTI NAGAR, BENGALURU-560027 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. B. BOPANNA, ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NOS.1, 3 AND 4 (VAKALATH NOT FILED); SRI. VENKATESH ARABATTI, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.2 (VAKALATH NOT FILED) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 08.03.2022 PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT IN CASE NO.GRa.Aa.Pa/560/GRa.Pam.Aa/2020 VIDE ANNEXURE-L. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ ORAL ORDER The petitioner has challenged the order bearing PÀqÀvÀ ¸ÀASÉå: UÁæC¥À 560 UÁæ¥ÀAC 2020 dated 08.03.2022 passed by the respondent No.1 under Sections 43-A and 48(4) of the Karnataka Gram Swaraj and Panchayat Raj Act, 1993 (for short, ‘the Act, 1993’), by which she was disqualified from contesting election for a period of six years from the date of the order. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47370 WP No. 2350 of 2023 2. The petitioner was the President of the Yarramvaripalli Grama Panchayat (henceforth referred to as ‘the Panchayat’). An application was filed by an RTI activist seeking details of the spending in the 13th Financial Plan between 01.04.2014 to 17.07.2015. Smt. S. Shantha Kumari - Panchayat Development Officer issued only bank statement. The RTI activist filed a complaint with the respondent No.2 against the PDO for not furnishing the full details. A notice was issued to the PDO calling for her explanation. The PDO submitted a 23 page report wherein she denied the allegations made against her by the RTI activist. The RTI activist submitted a rejoinder to the objections stating that the PDO did not produce the vouchers for spending a sum of Rs.21,29,792/- between 19.08.2014 and 31.08.2015. Though the PDO reported that the entire amount was spent, the respondent No.2, which was seized of the complaint filed by the RTI activist, came to the conclusion that there was a possibility of misappropriation of funds as alleged by the complainant during 19.08.2014 to 31.08.2015 when the petitioner was the President of the Panchayat. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47370 WP No. 2350 of 2023 3. The Lokayukta then launched a proceeding against the petitioner as well as the Panchayat Development Officers, namely, Sri N. Ramappa, Sri Nagaraju, and Sri Byreddy. The petitioner purportedly submitted all the documents in support of the spending in the 13th financial plan. However, the respondent No.2 came to the conclusion that money was paid illegally by Panchayat to students as well as physically challenged persons. It was alleged that as against the circular of the State Government dated 22.07.2015 allowing the Panchayat to pay Rs.1,500/- for scheduled caste and scheduled tribe students, it had paid a sum of Rs.5,000/-. Likewise, a sum of Rs.6,000/- was paid to two physically challenged persons, namely, Sri Manjunath, son of late Sri Erappa, Sri Narasimhappa, son of late Sri Kadirappa, without obtaining disability certificates. Therefore, the respondent No.1 directed initiation of proceedings against the petitioner under the Act, 1993. A report of the Lokayukta under Section 12(3) of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984 was forwarded to the respondent No.1. The respondent No.1 passed an order dated 16.10.2019 directing the authorities to initiate departmental action against the then PDOs. On the basis of the said order, - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47370 WP No. 2350 of 2023 the respondent No.1 issued a show cause notice dated 16.10.2019 to the petitioner calling upon her to show cause as to why action should not be taken under Sections 43-A and 48(4) of the Act, 1993. The petitioner replied to the said notice on 05.11.2019, consequent to which the respondent No.4 was ordered to conduct an enquiry. The respondent No.4 after an enquiry, submitted a report before the respondent No.1 stating that the petitioner did not produce any documents in support of her case and that action be initiated against her under Sections 43-A and 48(4) of the Act, 1993. On the basis of the said report, respondent No.3 issued a notice dated 29.08.2020 calling upon the petitioner to submit her reply to the findings recorded by the respondent No.4. The petitioner submitted a reply on 05.10.2020 to the respondent No.3. Thereafter, respondent No.3 issued a notice to the petitioner on 04.01.2021 calling upon her to appear and furnish documents if any, pursuant to which she appeared before the respondent No.3 through counsel and filed written statement along with documents. Thereafter, respondent No.1 passed the impugned order under Sections 43-A, 48(4) read with section 12 (l) of the - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47370 WP No. 2350 of 2023 Act, 1993 disqualifying the petitioner from contesting the election for a period of six years from the date of the order. 4. The petitioner being aggrieved by the said order, is before this Court. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that for an action under Sections 43-A, 48(4) of the Act, 1993, it is incumbent upon the respondent No.1 to obtain a report of the respondent No.4. He contends that the respondent No.4 is obliged to obtain a factual report of the allegations made against the petitioner. He contends that in the report of respondent No.4, there is no finding of fact but the respondent No.4 merely relied upon the report of the Lokayukta to come to the conclusion that the petitioner was guilty of usurping/misapplying the funds of the Panchayat. He contends that the respondent No.1 also did not go into the question whether there was any factual finding but proceeded on the report submitted by the respondent No.4. He, therefore, submits that the entire enquiry conducted by the respondent No.4 which resulted in the impugned order passed by the respondent No.1 warrants interference. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47370 WP No. 2350 of 2023 6. Learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent Nos.1, 3 and 4 did not dispute the fact that the respondent No.4 is bound to conduct a factual enquiry to arrive at the conclusion whether the allegations made against the petitioner are established. He submits that the Lokayukta had conducted a detailed enquiry wherein it was found that the petitioner and other PDOs. were involved in the possible embezzlement of funds of the Panchayat. He, therefore, contends that the respondent No.4 accepted the report submitted by the Lokayukta and submitted a report to the respondent No.1 and the respondent No.1 based on the said report, had passed the impugned order. 7. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Advocate for the respondent Nos.1, 3 and 4. 8. Under Section 43-A of the Act, 1993, the circumstances under which a member can be removed are provided for. The procedure for removal of such member is provided under Section 48 of the Act, 1993 which reads as follows: - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47370 WP No. 2350 of 2023 “48. Resignation or removal of Adhyaksha and Upadhyaksha.- (1) The Adhyaksha of the Grama Panchayat may resign his office by writing under his hand addressed to the Assistant Commissioner and the Upadhyaksha of the Grama Panchayat may resign his office by writing under his hand addressed to the Adhyaksha and in absence of the Adhyaksha to the Assistant Commissioner. Provided that Adhyaksha or Upadhyaksha of a Gram Panchayat shall,- (i) on the grounds of proven physical or mental incapacity certified by a competent authority approved by the State Election Commission; or; (ii) on the grounds of securing employment in central Government or State Government or public undertakings; -resign his office or membership, or be liable for removal: Provided further that the Assistant Commissioner shall enquire into the cause of resignation and satisfy that resignation has not been submitted under threat, coercion, undue influence and allurement and is submitted voluntarily; x x x - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47370 WP No. 2350 of 2023 (2) Every Adhyaksha or Upadhyaksha of the Grama Panchayat shall vacate his office if he ceases to be a member of the Grama Panchayat. (3) Every resignation under sub-section (1) shall take effect on the expiry of ten days from the date of its receipt by the Assistant Commissioner or the Adhyaksha, as the case may be, unless within the period of ten days he withdraws such resignation by writing under his hand addressed to the Assistant Commissioner or the Adhyaksha, as the case may be. (4) Every Adhyaksha and Upadhyaksha of Grama Panchayat shall, after an opportunity is afforded for hearing him, and if necessary after obtaining a report from the Taluk Panchayat and considering the same be removable from his office as Adhyaksha or Upadhyaksha by the Government or an authority authorised by the Government for being persistently remiss or guilty of misconduct in the discharge of his duties and an Adhyaksha or Upadhyaksha so removed who does not cease to be a member under sub-section (2) shall not be eligible for re-election as Adhyaksha or Upadhyaksha during the remaining term of office as member of such Grama Panchayat. (5) An Adhyaksha or Upadhyaksha removed from his office under sub-section (4) may also be removed by the Government from the membership of the Grama Panchayat.” - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47370 WP No. 2350 of 2023 Therefore, having regard to the consequences of disqualifying a member, it was incumbent upon the respondent No.1 to obtain a factual report from respondent No.4 about the involvement of the petitioner in any wrongful act. In the instant case, the respondent No.4 blindly relied upon the report submitted by the Lokayukta to hold that the petitioner is guilty of misconduct without calling for records from the Panchayat and without recording a finding of fact based on the records. The respondent No.1 based on the report of the respondent No.4 blindly proceeded to remove the petitioner from the membership of the Panchayat and disqualified her from contesting election for a period of six years from the date of the impugned order. Every order of every administrative/quasi judicial authority is bound to reflect independent application of mind and should contain justifiable reasons for arriving at a conclusion. This is not a formality but a necessary requirement in law, as a citizen is bound to know the reasons that compelled an authority to arrive at a particular finding. 9. In view of the above, the impugned order passed by the respondent No.1 as well as the report submitted by the respondent No.4 deserve to be interfered with . - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47370 WP No. 2350 of 2023 Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed in part. The impugned order bearing PÀqÀvÀ ¸ÀASÉå: UÁæC¥À 560 UÁæ¥ÀAC 2020 dated 08.03.2022 passed by the respondent No.1 removing the petitioner as member of the Panchayat and disqualifying her from contesting the election for a period of six years from the date of the impugned order is set aside. The matter is remitted back to the respondent No.1 which shall obtain a factual report of the allegations made against the petitioner from Yarramvaripalli Grama Panchayath and thereafter, hear the petitioner and then proceed in accordance with law. This shall be complied within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. Sd/- (R. NATARAJ) JUDGE SMA/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 69