Smt. R Jayalakshmi Vs the State of Karnataka

THE REGIONAL COMMISSIONER BENGALURU REGION AND NODAL OFFICER EX-OFFICIO SECRETARY, (ECONOMIC OFFENCES) II FLOOR, BMTC COMPLEX, K.H. ROAD, SHANTHINAGARA, BENGALURU-560 027

¶15

THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER TUMAKURU ZILLA PANCHAYATH, TUMAKURU DISTRICT, TUMAKURU-572101

¶16

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:53549 WP No. 23971 of 2025

¶17

HC-KAR

¶18

THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER SIRA TALUK PANCHAYATH, SIRA TALUK, SIRA-572137

¶19

PANCHAYATH DEVELOPMENT OFFICER BANDAKUNTE VILLAGE PANCHAYATH, BANDAKUNTE VILLAGE, SIRA TALUK, TUMAKURU DISTRICT-572137

¶20

THE STATE ELECTION COMMISSIONER STATE ELECTION COMMISSION, NO.16, II AND III FLOOR, BALLARI ROAD, SADASHIVANAGARA, BENGALURU-560080

¶21

…RESPONDENTS

¶22

(BY SMT. PRATHIMA HONNAPUR, ADDITIONAL ADVOCATE GENERAL FOR SRI. H.K.KENCHEGOWDA, ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NOS.1 AND 2;

¶23

SRI. A. NAGARAJAPPA, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NOS.3 TO 5; SRI. SIDDHARTH P. DESAI, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.6)

¶24

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER OF THE 1^ST RESPONDENT DATED 15.07.2025 IN NO.GRA.AA.PA.35 GRA.PAM.AA.2023 AS PER ANNEXURE-G AND ETC.

¶25

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶26

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ

¶27

ORAL ORDER

¶28

The petitioner has challenged an order bearing No. UÁæC¥À

¶29

35 UÁæ¥ÀAC 2023 dated 15.07.2025 passed by the respondent

¶30

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:53549 WP No. 23971 of 2025

¶31

HC-KAR

¶32

No.1 under Sections 43-A, 48(4) and 48(5) of the Karnataka Gram Swaraj and Panchayat Raj Act, 1993 (for short, ‘the Act, 1993’) by which, she was removed from the post of the President of Bandakunte Gram Panchayat and disqualified as Member of the said Panchayat and further, disqualified from contesting elections to any Panchayat for a period of six years from the date of the said order under Section 12(l) of the Act, 1993.

¶33

The petitioner has sought for a direction to restore

¶34

the order bearing No.¥ÁæDPÀ/C©üªÀÈ¢Þ/¹Dgï/21/2022-23 dated

¶35

07.03.2024 passed by the respondent No.2.

¶36

The petitioner is a member of Bandakunte Gram Panchayat (henceforth referred to as 'the Panchayat') of which respondent No.5 is the Panchayat Development Officer and she was elected on 05.02.2021 for a term of five years. One Sri Thimmegowda had lodged a complaint against the petitioner alleging that the petitioner being a member of the respondent No.5 had used her influence and allowed her husband to be engaged as a Contractor under the 15^th Financial Plan and was entrusted 9 projects during the year 2021-22 and five projects

¶37

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:53549 WP No. 23971 of 2025

¶38

HC-KAR

¶39

during the years 2022-23. He was also entrusted seven projects under the same plan and a sum of Rs.7,66,752/- was paid by the concerned authority to him. Based on such an allegation, the respondent No.1 instructed the Chief Executive officer of the Zilla Panchayat and Taluk Panchayat, namely, respondent Nos.3 and 4 to submit a report. Accordingly, reports were submitted to the respondent No.1. This was then referred to the respondent No.2 to conduct an enquiry and forward an opinion to enable a final decision to be taken.

¶40

A notice was thereafter issued by the respondent No.2 to the petitioner on 08.09.2023 calling upon her to show cause about the complaint lodged by Sri Thimmegowda. The petitioner replied to the respondent No.2 by her letter dated 25.09.2023 seeking more time to respond. The petitioner submitted her reply on 22.12.2023 denying the assertions made in the show cause notice. An enquiry was proposed by the respondent No.2 on 26.03.2025 which was informed to the petitioner vide notice dated 07.03.2025. The respondent No.2 then conducted an enquiry, recorded the statement of the Panchayat Development Officer (PDO) as well as the Executive

¶41

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:53549 WP No. 23971 of 2025

¶42

HC-KAR

¶43

Officer of Taluka Panchayat. After conclusion of the enquiry, the respondent No.2 opined on 07.03.2024 that the involvement of the petitioner awarding work to her husband is not forthcoming but opined that there was dereliction of duty by the then PDO. He had recommended to the Government to delete the name(s) of contractor(s) from the Panchayat Raj Engineering Department (PRED) list, if he/she/they was/were found to be family member(s) of any elected member of the Gram Panchayat and Zilla Panchayat/Taluk Panchayat and if his/her/their name(s) was/were included in the said list during the five year tenure of such member and further recommended to suspend the then PDO and initiate disciplinary action against him. Upon receipt of the opinion, the respondent No.1 opened a file bearing No.Gra.A.pa.35.Gra.Pam.A.2024. In the said file, at paragraph Nos.4 and 5, there is a reference to the report submitted by the respondent No.2 and from paragraph No.22 onwards it was noted as to what action should be taken based on the enquiry report. At paragraph No.27, it was noted " Please examine and bring for discussion along with legal advisor ”. Petitioner claims that at paragraph No.32 and thereafter at paragraph No.39 of the said file, an opinion of the

¶44

6 -

¶45

NC: 2025:KHC:53549 WP No. 23971 of 2025

¶46

HC-KAR

¶47

Legal Advisor is furnished. The file was then processed and placed before the respondent No.1, who passed the final order dated 15.07.2025 removing the petitioner from the post of the President of the Panchayat under Section 43-A of the Act, 1993 and disqualified her from the membership of the Panchayat as provided under Sections 48(4) and 48(5) of the Act, 1993. In addition, she was disqualified from contesting elections to any Panchayat for a period of six years from the date of the impugned order under Section 12(l) of the Act, 1993. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner is before this Court.

¶48

The writ petition is opposed by the respondent Nos.1 and 2 who have contended inter alia that the respondent No.1 after receipt of the report from the respondent No.2 and after considering the contentions of the petitioner as well as the documents produced by her, passed the impugned order disqualifying her from the membership and Presidentship of the Panchayat. It also ordered that the petitioner shall not be eligible to contest in the election to any Panchayat for a period of six years under Section 43-A(2) of the Act, 1993. It is contended that the Scheme of Section 43-A of the Act, 1993 empowers the Government or any other Authority authorized

¶49

7 - NC: 2025:KHC:53549 WP No. 23971 of 2025

¶50

HC-KAR

¶51

by the Government on the recommendation of the Panchayat or otherwise to remove a member of the Panchayat on alleged misconduct. Section 43-A(2) of the Act, 1993 provides that such a member shall be disqualified from contesting the elections to any Panchayat as provided under Section 12 of the Act, 1993 for a period of six years. It is claimed that the petitioner was a President of the Bandakunte Grama Panchayat, Sira Taluk, Tumakuru District. A resident of the village named Sri Thimmegowda had lodged a complaint against the petitioner alleging that she had misused her office and awarded civil contracts of the Panchayat to her husband during the years 2021-22 and 2022-23 in 15^th Financial Plan and also misused the funds meant for Varga-I for use of Gram Panchayat works. They also alleged that the husband of the petitioner had received the money from the Panchayat in respect of various projects under the 15^th Financial Plan and therefore, sought action against the petitioner in accordance with the Act, 1993. Upon receipt of the complaint, the respondent No.3 directed the Executive Officer to submit a detailed report with regard to the above said complaint made against the petitioner. The respondent Nos.3 and 4 submitted reports to the respondent

¶52

8 - NC: 2025:KHC:53549 WP No. 23971 of 2025

¶53

HC-KAR

¶54

No.1 who after considering them, referred the matter to the respondent No.2 to conduct an enquiry as per Sections 43-A and 48(4) of the Act, 1993. The respondent No.3 had also submitted a report to the respondent No.2 stating that the husband of the petitioner was a Contractor and contract works of the Panchayat under the 15^th Finance Plan and under Varga-I were assigned to him and the said works were completed by him. It was mentioned that in all, 17 works of the Panchayat at a cost of Rs.7,66,752/- were awarded to the husband of the petitioner. The respondent No.3 therefore submitted a report to the respondent No.2 to initiate action against the petitioner as provided under Section 43-A of the Act, 1993.

¶55

After receipt of such a report, the respondent No.2 took up the matter for an enquiry and issued show cause notice to the petitioner. The petitioner appeared and submitted her reply. On 07.03.2024, the respondent No.2 conducted a detailed enquiry and after considering the oral and documentary evidence submitted by the petitioner and officials of the Department and considering all the aspects of the matter, submitted an enquiry report to respondent No.1 on

¶56

9 - NC: 2025:KHC:53549 WP No. 23971 of 2025

¶57

HC-KAR

¶58

07.03.2024 exonerating the petitioner and recommending action against the then PDO and passed an order suspending him from service pending an enquiry. It is contended that the respondent No.1 not satisfied with the enquiry report and realising the complicity of the petitioner and her husband in procuring works, decided to disagree with the enquiry report submitted by the respondent No.2. The respondent No.1 then issued a second show cause notice indicating as to why he did not agree with the report of the respondent No.2 and called upon the petitioner to show cause as to why action should not be initiated against her. Respondent No.1 had fixed the date of hearing on 30.10.2024. The petitioner did not appear on the said date and thereafter, the case was taken up and the impugned order was passed disqualifying the petitioner from the membership and Presidentship of the Panchayat. Respondent No.1 also exercised jurisdiction under Section 43A(2) of the Act, 1993 and disqualified the petitioner from contesting the elections for a period of six years from the date of the order. It is, therefore, contended that the impugned order is just and proper based on the facts and circumstances

¶59

10 -

¶60

NC: 2025:KHC:53549 WP No. 23971 of 2025

¶61

HC-KAR

¶62

as well as the incriminating evidence available against the petitioner.

¶63

The learned Senior counsel for the petitioner submitted that under Section 13 of the Act, 1993, it is only the State Election Commission which has the authority to disqualify a member from contesting the elections. However, the respondent No.1 exercised power under Section 12(l) of the Act, 1993 to disqualify the petitioner. He contends that the respondent No.2 after perusing the material furnished by the respondent Nos.3 and 4, had opined that the petitioner had no role in the allotment of work to her husband. He, therefore, contends that the respondent No.1 could not have taken a contrary view, more particularly, when there was no material in that regard. He contends that if the respondent No.1 was not satisfied with the opinion furnished by the respondent No.2, he must have put the petitioner on notice about the intended action or he must have got a fresh enquiry done by another officer.

¶64

Besides this, learned Senior counsel for the

¶65

petitioner contended that the respondent Nos.3 and 4 have no

¶66

11 -

¶67

NC: 2025:KHC:53549 WP No. 23971 of 2025

¶68

HC-KAR

¶69

authority in the matter of proceedings under Section 43-A of the Act, 1993 and it is for the State Government to take a conscious decision as to whether proceedings under Section 43A of the Act, 1993 should be invoked or not. He also contends that it is not the case of any of the respondents that the husband of the petitioner has not executed the work to the satisfaction of the Panchayath. It is also not even the case of any of the official respondents that the petitioner had influenced the elected body to award the contract to her husband. He also contends that the petitioner was not even the President of the Panchayat and the works in question were entrusted to her husband by the elected body of the Panchayath. He, therefore, contends that the impugned proceedings initiated against the petitioner are unjust and calls for interference.

¶70

Per contra, the learned Additional Advocate General for the respondents 1 and 2 submitted that under Section 43-A of the Act, 1993, the disqualification kicks in soon after it is found that a member is directly interested in the transactions of the Panchayat. She contends that the petitioner has not disputed the fact that her husband was entrusted with certain

¶71

12 -

¶72

NC: 2025:KHC:53549 WP No. 23971 of 2025

¶73

HC-KAR

¶74

contractual works under the 15^th Financial Plan during 2021-22 and 2022-23. The petitioner also did not dispute the fact that her husband had received Rs.7,66,752/- from the concerned Authority for the work done. She, therefore, contends that the petitioner was directly interested in the transactions of the Panchayat.

¶75

I have considered the submissions of the learned Senior counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the respondent Nos.1 and 2.

¶76

Under Section 43-A of the Act, 1993, the petitioner was elected as a member of the Panchayat for a term of five years in the year 2020. As a member of the Panchayat, the petitioner is required to ensure that she does not directly involve in the execution of any work of Panchayat or with any person who is a nearest relative in the family or associated in any transaction related to such work as a partner, employee or a member on the Committee of such organization. This requirement in law stands to reason as a member of the Panchayat cannot confer largesse upon her own ilk. That would be of case of clear conflict of interest. It is with an intent to ward off such

¶77

13 -

¶78

NC: 2025:KHC:53549 WP No. 23971 of 2025

¶79

HC-KAR

¶80

conflicts of interest that specific provision is contained in Section 43-A of the Act, 1993, which reads as follows:

¶81

"43-A. Removal of members .– (1) The Government or an Authority authorized by the Government if it thinks fit, on the recommendation of the Gram Panchayat, or otherwise, may remove any member after giving him an opportunity of being heard and after such enquiry as it deems necessary, –

¶82

(i) if he has been guilty of misconduct in the discharge of duties or of any disgraceful conduct;

¶83

(ii) become incapable of performing duties as a member, or persistently remiss in performing duties:-

¶84

(a) on being medically unfit to hold the post as may be certified by the district surgeon;

¶85

(b) as a result of insolvency or of unsound mind.

¶86

(iii) has failed to attend four consecutive meetings of the panchayat, and in the case of an Adhyaksha or Upadhyaksha, failed to convene two consecutive meetings which were either due or were necessary;

¶87

Provided that where an application is made by a member to the Grama Panchayat for leave to absent himself and Grama Panchayat fails to inform the applicant of its decision on the application

¶88

14 -

¶89

NC: 2025:KHC:53549 WP No. 23971 of 2025

¶90

HC-KAR

¶91

within a period of seven days from the date of the application, the leave applied for shall be deemed to have been granted by the Grama Panchayat

¶92

(iv) if the member, by coercion or fraud entice any voter or member of Gram Panchayat or Taluk Panchayat or Zilla Panchayatas as the case may be to trade the post of member or Adhyaksha or Upadhyaksha of Gram Panchayat or Taluk Panchayat or Zilla Panchayat, as the case may be, during election for a consideration; or

¶93

(v) in the execution of any work of the panchayat, contractual or otherwise found involved directly with any person who is a nearest relative in the family or otherwise associated in any transaction related to such work as a partner, employee or a member on the Committee of such organisation, or otherwise.

¶94

(vi) If a former Adhyaksha or Upadhyaksha or member of Grama Panchayat has been accused and proved guilty for misconduct or misappropriation in an Inquiry.]

¶95

Explanation : For the purpose of this section, nearest relative in the family means, -

¶96

15 - NC: 2025:KHC:53549 WP No. 23971 of 2025

¶97

HC-KAR

¶98

(a) the wife or husband of a person residing with her or him;

¶99

(b) son or daughter or step-son or stepdaughter;

¶100

(c) any other person related, whether by blood or marriage who is wholly dependent on such person;

¶101

(2) An Adhyaksha or Upadhyaksha or member so removed shall cease to function as such member and shall be disqualified from contesting election as provided in Section 12 of the Act to any panchayat for the next six years”.

¶102

In the case on hand, it is not in dispute that the

¶103

husband of the petitioner was a Contractor who had undertaken nearly 17 projects under the 15^th Financial Plan. These projects

¶104

were granted to the husband of the petitioner even while the petitioner was a member of the Panchayat. The petitioner cannot feign ignorance that her husband was one of the tenderers for grant of contract. Therefore, the possibility of the petitioner being directly involved in the execution of the works of the Panchayat, cannot be disbelieved.

¶105

The petitioner has not disputed the fact that her husband had received a sum of Rs.7,66,752/- towards the

¶106

16 -

¶107

NC: 2025:KHC:53549 WP No. 23971 of 2025

¶108

HC-KAR

¶109

works executed. Therefore, the report of the respondent No.2 that the petitioner was not involved directly in selection of her husband as contractor by the Panchayat, is without any basis. As a matter of fact, when the report of the respondent No.2 is perused, there is no justification for the respondent No.2 in exonerating the petitioner from the charge that she had incurred the disqualification under Section 43-A of the Act, 1993. The respondent No.1 having rejected the report of the respondent No.2, has rightly followed the procedure in issuing a second show cause notice to the petitioner and thereafter hearing her and passing the impugned order removing her from the post of President of the Panchayat under Section 48(4) of the Act, 1993 and disqualifying her from the membership of the Panchayat under Sections 43-A and 48(5) of the Act, 1993. The respondent No.1 is authorised under Section 43-A(2) to disqualify a person from contesting election as provided under Section 12 of the Act for a term of six years.

¶110

In that view of the matter, this writ petition lacks merit and is dismissed.

¶111

17 -

¶112

NC: 2025:KHC:53549 WP No. 23971 of 2025

¶113

HC-KAR

¶114

Before parting from the case, it is relevant to note that, the respondent No.1 cannot invoke power under Section 12(l) of the Act, 1993 as it is only the State Election Commission which has to exercise jurisdiction and not the respondent No.1. Therefore, respondent No.1 is henceforth directed not to invoke power under Section 12(l) of the Act, 1993 to disqualify a member or an office bearer of the Panchayat. The respondent No.1 may after passing an order under Section 43-A of the Act, 1993, may invoke the power under Section 48(4) or under Section 43-A(2) of the Act, 1993.

¶115

In view of disposal of this petition, I.A. No.2/2025 for stay and I.A. No.4/2025 for impleading do not survive for consideration and the same stand disposed off.

¶116

Sd/(R. NATARAJ) JUDGE

¶117

SMA

¶118

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 42

Smt. R Jayalakshmi v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. R Jayalakshmi v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt.Tejashree L Vs State of Karnataka

G.D.A Foundation Trust Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt Priya Vs the State of Karnataka

M/S. M. v. and Vajra Developers Vs the Commissioner

Sarvodaya Education Society Vs State of Karnataka

Mr. Syed Rameez Rahil Vs the Commissioner