IN THE HIGH comm ore' KARNATAKA, f _
DATED THIS THE um DAYQAF JU1.%IE',' _ '
BEFORE %
THE HOWBLE MR. JUSTIC'-E RAMv_SJi0HAIi"V'R;€;Dj3?'j'; H
wan' PETITION No.11§-£4/05 (LE- tiiméy
BETWEEN:
1
SR}. MYPALA REDDY" " ._
S/0 RAMA4R'E_1_:)DYA'
A/A 36 Y!_?S"i;~_.-' g
GRAM_.P.xm4Ci1@_¥AT;%__A§§MBER .
HOWRAD gs), GRAM 'PMCaAYATH
BIDAR 2&1: _B_mAR_D!S'r.RVIC!'
' " PEFYPRONER
(By 3:5; 1§.R;ANAN$§:'$zjis*1§ié.§; ,Anv. )
AND:
anoonoonununun '
A ':4+:iij%<3€)*JsRN»iE:hrr or? KARNATAKA
% --VRE§?.*B'i*.l'l'S sacammv
RURAL' DEVELOPMENT AND
"FANG:-§;AYmH RAJ DEPARTMENT
A "-.._M.S;BUI~£DING, DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
{By Sri: RAMESH BANNAPPAHAVR. AGA
eAN(3ALoRE--o1.
'm.!"; CHIEF' E)CECUTIV'E orrmczn
' * BIDAR TALUK BIDAR DISTRICT'.
*i*HE: SECRETARY
HOWRAD (S) GRAM PANCEAYATH
BIDAR TALUK
BI DAR DISTRICT RESPONDENTS
15*
THIS wan’ PETITIGN KS F’iLED;U~P!.DER.’ 226- ” ”
AND 227 OF THE consrmmon go? 1;-e’L§:A__ PRAy1ma,_ ‘rg ;
QUASH THE EMPUGNED menam. ET)z’t~’i_”‘E.l._’.)”7.
3.07.2006/18/7’/2006 AT ANNX~_A.
THIS PETITION, COMING FOR Pm, HT.€;AriIV§é’:N
‘B’ GROUP THIS BAY THE mum {smut} THE”FQ_§g!{(}WING:
u % E)ismembex-Eng of Amad (S) Gram V' by order dated 3.7.2006] lat respondent «-
State Karna_ ” in this petition.
V_E’etitimi”v_isV”*’&LV>ppoaed by filing statement of
‘~ of xist ——– –respondent intcralh contending that
gziected member of 3*’ respondent – Gram
m_ §;sa’Vpp1t)priated funds of the panchayath
t’o:i§_l3zV'<'§ught Relief Scheme which act of misconduct,
of the Gram Panchayat brought to the notice
Executive Oficcr, Ziila Panchayath, Bidar, a
" was fonvamded to the State Govt. on
3 1.3.2007 for wcfimn, which was acted upon by
issuing a notice dateti 24.3.2006 under Sec. 1231) of 1?
H
Kamataka Panchayath Raj Act, 3.993, 1231* —
calling upon the petitioner to
from the date of macipt of the
responded to, the notice byV
explaining the citcumstamges the
chaques, while -The petiiiousr
having fun imogyxmjiggg afiseod
his blank cheques
bexongng ts.) The petitioner except
for himaeif for a personal
hearing' dfifispéte an opportnmity of hi .
Thc4pc:ti%ioz£er."- assanm the onicr impugned
en' ficslkywjzn' g 'thfl """ "dantentiona as aired by his lmrnad
petitioner was not extended a fair
~. cf hating before the state in the
insfltuted under See.43A of flm Act
while the evidence cf the pmflcs was not rwaaied;
M
2. that the State had no was :57
action under
3. that being a first .mcxn.b¢tA’wa§V
aware of all the pmcéflgixns of V
chcques of hf Gram
Panchayath agsznount due to
the pardoned.
The icarned the State xtzitcratcs
the sta1;¢x31’é11i% “S’t$I”ii”:i’Ii8I1t of objections while
seeking ‘t,9 ” impugned as being well
merited, :.”-hot calling for interference.
A’ ‘the learned counsel fo: the parties,
and examined the order impugned,
thé;r§”‘¢an A dispute that thc petitioner a first time
§:1:;ecte€l of the Gram Panchayath; admitted to the
K ” j;a¢t’o£_ha§ing afixed his signatures to the blank cheques of
account of the Gram Panchayath. leading to the
” of the funds meant for Drought Relief
‘A Schemes, and vohmtarily eflhcted refund of the said
M
sums to the panch.ayath.’a account, clearly ”
the fact of misappropriation of funds qf
Panchayath.
5. In the backdmp of thesg adfiified gigs %’
oral or docutncntary evidence ‘bf xfigniés of
the Panchayat, was 1′ ifiéfimmd
under Sec.-43A of the Ac’; did
not participate on 24.6.2006
as setout nor tendered
evidencgg was not conversant
with state in the explanation to
the Show it is too far fetched for the
that he was not afforded an
heating. Even before this count, the
Ii§3V’t’v.come out with what era} or documentary
V –V evidéiacc ” éiesired to pbce before the authority. In my
the light of the admitted fiacts it cannot but
that the petitioner had. no evidence to ofihr over the
N
VT ” secés of withdraws} of monies belonging to the panchayahkt
6. The contention that the Stats?
junsd’ 1e’ tion to initiate action sue mgto under {he —
Act is devoid of merit. Abate madi–ng”of4s¢¢.,43.af§f.
discloses that the State Govt. may ‘ endéi-!:§G2:1iV”
of the Cfiram Panchayath or The
‘ words ‘or otherwise’ would its fold” ‘:3. she mote
pzoceedings.
7. The a first time
elected memfigr cannot liquidate
rigor of ekectcd representative
of the is answerable for his
actions and’ ‘cannoVtV to say that he was ignorant of
‘~ vinrelatian to the Bank accounts of the
The get of withdrawing monies of the
by sifling the cheque leaves of the Bank
‘ £l£:CO141 ‘111.;, nrésspwt of monies set apart for Drought Relief
V’ :S¢hémc, for a purpose other than the scheme, which the
effected mfiuzxd immediately after having come to
T ” cannot but a misappropriation, though tempoxalily,
U nevertheless a misconduct The explanation that he w
in the sknowhow of banking mTe
circumstances in only a ruse to get:v”<J3"AsAarHcb1}'
which he was placed. Taldng a ienicI1'i:7vi'i:'tzvA. in A
petitioner, said to be aged V.
elected member, would sexadinfifigy’ If the
pefitioncr did not to
discharge dut.i6<*3 3?" of thc Gram
Panchayath, he does not
dcsexvc §Pub1ic: Trust wouki be
at a E is to continue: as a
member of The Laudabk: objective
_ picrson who has been removed from
"of any heal authority to contest the
fiémbéfifip period of five years from the date of
mmbval 9,3' in Sec 12 of the Act, would stand
:the case of the petitioner is viewed' Lenten' tly .
VA conscious of the fact that diaqua1&tiaon would
.A sexious consequences upon that: petitioner's
fipmspectus in political life but having regard to the nature
of miaoonduct relating to misappmpfiation of the funds,
bi
more particularly, set apart for Bmught Relic!'
occurs to my mind that comloning such. u u ..
wouki amount to misphced sympathy.
The writ pcfition is witfibm mega:
rejected.
Sd/4