ORDER
B.S. Patil, J.
1. In this writ petition, the petitioner is challenging the order dated 27-10-2006 passed by the 1st respondent. The impugned order is produced at Annexure-F. As per the impugned order, the petitioner is removed from the membership of the Grama Panchayat, Vajramatti in Mudhol Taluk of Bagalkot District with immediate effect.
2. On certain allegations made against the petitioner stating that he had received a sum of Rs. 11,577/- in his name from the Grama Panchayat towards certain developmental work in the village executed through a contractor, proceedings were initiated against the petitioner under Section 43-A of the Karnataka Panchayat Raj Act, 1993. The said proceedings were initiated on a report submitted by the Chief Executive Officer of the Zilla Panchayat informing the incident involving the petitioner and requesting the Government to take appropriate action in the matter. A show-cause notice dated 29-7-2006 came to be issued vide Annexure-A. The petitioner submitted a reply dated 9-8-2006 vide Annexure-B. He contended that one Tukaram Daku Lamani r/o Petlur Camp had carried out the contract work in the village and was to be paid the amount of Rs. 11,577/-; as he had made a request to the Adhyaksha of the Grama Panchayat to give the cheque in the name of the petitioner which fact was also not known to the petitioner and as he came to know that the cheque was issued in his name only when he received the cheque, he was not in any manner responsible for the allegations made. He further contended that he had never requested the Adhyaksha or the Secretary of the Grama Panchayat to issue the cheque in his name and it was only when the Adhyaksha or the Secretary informed him that the contractor had requested them to issue the cheque in the name of the petitioner that he accepted the cheque. He further stated that after encashing the cheque he paid the amount of Rs. 11,577/- to the contractor through Sri Tukaram Daku Lamani and obtained a receipt in this regard and therefore he was not in any manner involved in the misconduct alleged against him.
3. The Competent Authority namely the Secretary, Department of Rural Development and Panchayat Raj has considered the reply submitted by the petitioner and after holding an enquiry into the allegations made has passed the impugned order recording a finding that the allegations made against the petitioner stood proved. A perusal of the impugned order Annexure-F discloses that the statement of the petitioner was recorded wherein he has stated that as the Secretary of the Grama Panchayat informed him to encash the cheque and remit the amount to the contractor he encashed the cheque and paid the amount to the contractor. The 1st respondent has examined this statement and the conduct of the petitioner and has come to the conclusion that there was absolutely no justification for the petitioner to obtain a cheque in his name and encash the same. The 1st respondent has further found that if the contractor had actually discharged the work it was a simple case wherein, the cheque ought to have been given in the name of the contractor who had carried out the work. The fact that the petitioner has obtained the cheque in his name and has encashed the same has made the 1st respondent to come to the conclusion that the action of the petitioner tantamounted to misconduct as stated under Section 12(h) of the Karnataka Panchayat Raj Act, 1993. As per the provision contained under Section 12(h) of the Act, a person shall be disqualified for being chosen and for being a member of the Grama Panchayat if he has directly or indirectly any share or interest in any work done by order of the Grama Panchayat or in any contract or employment with, or under, or by, or on behalf of the Grama Panchayat; (or if he is either directly or indirectly by himself or by his agent, partner or employee involved in obtaining or execution of any such work or contract on behalf of the Grama Panchayat or of any contract for the supply of goods and services to the Grama Panchayat;).
4. It is thus clear that even if a member has indirectly got any share or any interest in the work done by the order of the Grama Panchayat or in any contract on behalf of the Grama Panchayat it will incur disqualification for a member. Section 43-A of the Act provides for removal of a member for misconduct. It reads thus:
43-A. Removal of members for misconduct.-The Government if it thinks fit, on the recommendation of the Grama Panchayat, or otherwise, may remove any member after giving him an opportunity of being heard and after such enquiry as it deems necessary if such member has been guilty of misconduct in the discharge of his duties or of any disgraceful conduct or has become incapable of performing his duties as a member.
5. In the instant case, upon the report submitted by the Chief Executive Officer of the Zilla Panchayat and on the basis of the materials available on record particularly the undisputed fact that the sum of Rs. 11,577/- was received by the petitioner in his name by way of cheque from the Grama Panchayat, the 1st respondent was fully justified in holding that the petitioner was involved in the misconduct of having an interest in the contract work entrusted by the Grama Panchayat. Even though the petitioner has contended that he has merely received the cheque which was due to the contractor such an explanation belies commonsense. If at all he had received the cheque payable to the contractor as the contractor was unavailable at the time of issue of the cheque, the cheque would not have been issued in the name of the petitioner. The same would have been issued in the name of the contractor. The fact that the cheque is issued in the name of the petitioner and that he has admittedly encashed the same unmistakably shows that he had a direct interest in the work entrusted to the contractor by the Grama Panchayat and has thus incurred disqualification as provided under Section 12(h).
6. Although learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner was not given any opportunity to adduce evidence or to cross-examine the persons who had made the allegations, it is seen from the impugned order that the persons who had made allegations were not examined in the enquiry as witnesses and therefore the question of offering them to cross-examination does not arise. If the petitioner wanted to lead evidence in support of his defence nothing prevented him to do so. There is nothing to show that such an opportunity has been denied to the petitioner though he sought for the same. In that view of the matter, the procedure adopted by the 1st respondent in holding the enquiry cannot be termed as vitiated as the 1st respondent has proceeded on the basis of the materials on record and the admitted version of the petitioner that he had received the cheque executed in his name and had encashed the amount. There is nothing to support the contention that the petitioner was denied of fair opportunity to defend himself in the enquiry.
7. For the foregoing reasons, this writ petition being devoid of merits is dismissed with no order as to costs.
Government Pleader is permitted to file memo of appearance within six weeks.