- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3048 WP No. 200378 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, KALABURAGI BENCH DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI WRIT PETITION NO. 200378 OF 2025 (LB-RES) BETWEEN: UMMAVVA W/O GYANAPPA RATHOD, AGE: 68 YEARS, OCC: PRESIDENT OF GRAM PANCHAYAT, TALEKHAN, R/O: HADAGALI TANDA, TALUK: MASKI, DIST: RAICHUR – 584 126. …PETITIONER (BY SRI MAHANTESH PATIL, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA R/BY ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY (PR), RURAL DEVELOPMENT AND PANCHAYAT RAJ DEPARTMENT, M.S. BUILDING, BENGALURU – 560 001. 2. THE SECTION OFFICER/PITADHIKARI, KARNATAKA PANCHAYAT RAJ COMMISSIONERATE K.G. ROAD, BENGALURU – 560 009. 3. THE REGIONAL COMMISSIONER, KALABURAGI, SUB-DIVISION, KALABURAGI – 585 101. 4. THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, ZILLA PANCHAYAT, RAICHUR – 584 101. 5. THE CHIEF ACCOUNTANT OFFICER, ZILLA PANCHAYAT, RAICHUR – 584 101. Digitally signed by RAMESH MATHAPATI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3048 WP No. 200378 of 2025 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI K.MALHAR RAO, A.A.G., AND SRI SHESHADRI JAISHANKAR M., A.G.A. FOR R1 TO R3; SRI GOURISH S. KASHAMPUR, ADVOCATE FOR R4 TO R8; SRI GANESH S. KALABURAGI, ADVOCATE FOR R9) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ENQUIRY REPORT DATED 02.01.2025 VIDE ANNEXURE-K BEARING ¸ÀASÉå/PÀA/¥ÁæDPÀ/f.¥ÀA/101/2024-25 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.3 AND THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DATED 21.01.2025 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT VIDE ANNEXURE-M BEARING ¸ÀASÉå:UÁæC¥À 60 f¦J 2025, AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI 6. THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER, TALUK PANCHAYAT, MASKI, TALUK: MASKI, DIST: RAICHUR – 584 126. 7. THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, MGNREGA, TALUK PANCHAYAT, MASKI, TALUK: MASKI, DIST: RAICHUR – 584 126. 8. THE PANCHAYAT DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, GRAM PANCHAYAT TALEKHAN, TALUK: MASKI, DIST: RAICHUR – 584 126. 9. SRI MOUNESH S/O SHETAPPA AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS , OCC: MEMBER, TELEKHAN GRAM PANCHAYAT, R/O: HADAGALI TANDA, TQ: MASKI, DIST: RAICHUR – 585 126. AMENDED CAUSE TITLE AS PER ORDER DATED 18.03.2025 - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3048 WP No. 200378 of 2025 ORAL ORDER Challenging enquiry report dated 02.01.2025 at Annexure-K submitted by respondent no.3 and show cause notice dated 21.01.2025 issued by respondent no.2 at Annexure-M, this writ petition is filed. 2. Sri Mahantesh Patil, learned counsel submitted that petitioner was elected as Member of Hadagali Tanda–2 on 30.12.2020. It was submitted, on 03.01.2024, petitioner was elected as President of Gram Panchayat. It was submitted same was after passing no-confidence motion against respondent no.9-earlier Adhyaksha. It was submitted, on 29.08.2024, respondent no.4 orally directed respondent no.5 for conducting audit of accounts of all projects of Talekhan Gram Panchayat from year 2022-2023 to date. But, respondent no.5 restricted such enquiry only for period during which petitioner was President of Gram Panchayat. It was submitted that same would indicate that audit and enquiry was targeted against petitioner. Thereafter, respondent no.3-Regional Commissioner issued show cause notice to petitioner as per Annexure-E dated 29.10.2024 for enquiry for disqualification under Sections 43-A and 48(4) of Karnataka Gram Swaraj and Panchayat Raj Act, - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3048 WP No. 200378 of 2025 1993 (for short, ‘Panchayat Raj Act’). Petitioner appeared and filed reply as per Annexure-F. It was further submitted, in such enquiry, respondent no.8-Panchayat Development Officer (PDO) filed parawise remarks along with records and sought dropping of proceedings. Ignoring said material including measurement books produced by PDO as well as petitioner, respondent no.3-Regional Commissioner observed said material was not produced and submitted enquiry report as per Annexure-K concluding that petitioner had committed misconducts. Apparently, in pursuance of enquiry report at Annexure-K, respondent no.2 issued show cause notice as per Annexure-M. It was submitted disqualification under Sections 43-A and 48(4) of Panchayat Raj Act would impose serious civil consequences. Though provision contemplated enquiry by Government or authorized officer, it was apparent from Annexure-M that Government was seeking to rely on and proceed with enquiry report submitted by respondent no.3 which would be contrary to interpretation of provisions by Division Bench of this Court in case of Smt.Bhavani and another v. The State of Karnataka and others in W.P.no.103762/2017 and connected matters disposed of on - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3048 WP No. 200378 of 2025 08.12.2020 and in case of Smt.Savithramma and others v. The Panchayat Development Officer and others in W.P.no.3150/2020 disposed of on 09.12.2020. Therefore, on ground that initiation of enquiry only against petitioner was discriminatory and malafide as well as reliance upon enquiry report at Annexure-K would not be justified, petitioner had filed this writ petition. 3. Sri K.Malhar Rao, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for Sri Sheshadri Jaishankar M., learned Additional Government Advocate for respondents no.1 to 3 sought to oppose petition. It was submitted, writ petition filed against a show cause notice was premature. It was submitted that there was no basis for alleging malafide against enquiry as it was in pursuance of audit report noting financial misfeasance. It was submitted that though petitioner was apprehensive about respondent no.2 not conducting any enquiry, very notice at Annexure-M was about enquiry. It was submitted that enquiry would be conducted following directions issued by Division Bench of this Court in W.P.no.103762/2017 and connected matters after providing petitioner with sufficient opportunity and thereafter appropriate orders passed. It was - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3048 WP No. 200378 of 2025 submitted there was no merit in writ petition and sought dismissal. 4. Sri Ganesh Kalburgi, learned counsel appearing for respondent no.9 sought to adopt submission of learned Addl. Advocate General and reinforce it with decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Union Of India And Another vs Kunisetty Satyanarayana1 and Co-ordinate Bench judgment of this Court in W.P.no.203249/2022 disposed of on 09.01.2023. 5. In reply, learned counsel for petitioner sought to contend that enquiry as contemplated in judgment by Division Bench of this Court included furnishing material sought to be relied upon by respondent no.2, petitioner apprehended that she would not be supplied with material. 6. Heard learned counsel and perused writ petition papers. 7. Writ petition is filed challenging enquiry report at Annexure-K submitted by respondent no.3-Regional 1 AIR 2007 SC 906 - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3048 WP No. 200378 of 2025 Commissioner and show cause notice issued by respondent no.2. Referring to enquiry report, Annexure-E, show cause notice issued by respondent no.3 was in proceedings for disqualification under Section 43-A and 48 (4) of Karnataka Panchayatraj Act. Said provision would empower only Government or its authority to hold enquiry and pass orders for disqualification. Though report is submitted and findings recorded by enquiry authority about financial misfeasance by petitioner, Annexure-K is only an ‘enquiry report’ and not an executive order. Enquiry report by itself therefore cannot give rise to cause of action for filing this writ petition. If respondents intend to initiate proceedings for disqualification of Adhyaksha of Gram Panchayat, same could only by recourse to Section 43- A and 48(4) of Panchayat Raj Act. Annexure-M issued by respondent no.2 appears to be expression of such initiation. Therefore directions issued by Division Bench of this Court in W.P.no.103762/2017 and connected matters that enquiry contemplated was as follows would be attracted: “14. It can be gainfully stated that the word ‘enquiry’ as occurring in the Section clearly implies an investigation by the Government and a concomitant to such an enquiry is furnishing of material relied upon by the Government and an opportunity to rebut or test the veracity of the material put against or the persons - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3048 WP No. 200378 of 2025 acted against, and thereafter, the provision visualizes an opportunity of being heard which necessarily implies an opportunity of hearing to the parties to present their summation on the merits of the material relied upon and merits of the case. Further, the powers vested in the Government can be invoked only on the proof of certain charges as enumerated under clauses (i) to (v) of sub Section (1) of Section 43-A of the Panchayathraj Act.” 8. It is seen that Division Bench in said matter was examining validity of an order passed after enquiry, whereas present case is at stage of notice. As rightly submitted by learned Addl. Advocate General challenge against action initiated would be premature. 9. Even Petitioner’s challenge on ground of malafide or discrimination would require rejection for said reason that restriction of audit under Annexure-C1, when petitioner was president of Gram Panchayat would not absolve earlier Adhyaksha of any financial misfeasance committed during his tenure nor would petitioner be barred against producing material against him, but same cannot be used by petitioner to escape enquiry insofar as financial irregularities or misfeasance alleged to be committed by petitioner during his tenure. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3048 WP No. 200378 of 2025 In view of above, writ petition challenging Annexure-M is dismissed as premature and against Annexure-K as not tenable. However, respondents shall conduct enquiry against petitioner in compliance with paragraph 14 of W.P. no.103762/2017 and connected matters extracted above. Sd/- (RAVI V HOSMANI) JUDGE NB,MSR List No.: 2 Sl No.: 29 Ct;Vk