Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 179 (KAR)

Yellappa Basvani Tashildar v. State of Karnataka

2008-03-12

B.S.PATIL

body2008
ORDER B.S. Patil, J. 1. In these two writ petitions common questions of fact and law are raised. Hence, they are clubbed, heard together and are disposed of by this common judgment. 2. The challenge made by the petitioners is directed against the order passed by the State Government holding that the petitioners herein were guilty of misconduct in the discharge of their duties as Member and Adhyaksha respectively of the Taluka Panchayath, Belgaum, Belgaum District and their consequential removal from the said posts. Though the impugned orders in both the writ petitions are passed separately, the nature of the allegations made and the nature of enquiry held is similar, hence it is felt appropriate to dispose of these cases together. 3. The facts leading to these writ petitions, stated in nutshell are that the petitioner in W.P.No.12061/2006 and the petitioner in W.P.No.12062/2006 were elected as Members of the Taluk Panchayath, Belgaum for a period of 5 years in the elections held on 27.12.2005. On 31.01.2006, the petitioner in W.P.No.12062/2006 was elected as Adhyaksha. The meeting of the Taluka Panchayath was held on 27.02,7006 at 12.00 noon. The Executive Officer of the Taluka Panchayath and all the members of the Taluka Panchayath were present in the meeting. The Executive Officer welcomed the Adhyaksha and Upadhyaksha and other members and requested the Adhyaksha of the Taluka Panchayath to commence the proceedings of the meeting, whereupon the Adhyaksha commenced the proceedings. At that time, Sri. Yellappa Basvani Tashildar (petitioner in W.P. No. 12061/2006) interrupted the proceedings and raised the issue of unification of the area into Maharashtra and non-settlement of the border dispute between Karnataka and Maharashtra for a long time and proposed a resolution for submission of petition to the Central Government and the Supreme Court in this matter. At this stage, the Executive Officer requested the Adhyaksha of the Taluka Panchayath Sri. Maruti Parshuram Kubji (Petitioner in W.P.No.12062/2006) not to permit the proposal to be tabled for discussion as the subject did not come within the powers, functions and jurisdiction of the Taluka Panchayath and that such a resolution will be illegal. He also informed that as the matter was pending in the Supreme Court, the same could not be discussed. However, the Adhyaksha permitted the discussion of the subject raised by the Member (petitioner in W.P. No.12061/2006), which resulted in serious protest from the other members. He also informed that as the matter was pending in the Supreme Court, the same could not be discussed. However, the Adhyaksha permitted the discussion of the subject raised by the Member (petitioner in W.P. No.12061/2006), which resulted in serious protest from the other members. There was pandemonium as the members started shouting slogans for and against the proposal. Despite efforts made by the Executive Officer to restore peace to enable peaceful transaction of the meeting in a disciplined manner, it was not possible as there was utter confusion and chaos. Efforts made by the Executive Officer to convince the Adhyaksha not to discuss the border issue were in vain. As a result, the Executive Officer alongwith the Officers left the meeting. On the same day, the Executive Officer narrated the above incident and submitted a report dated 28.02.2006 to the Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Panchayath, Belgaum. A copy of the said report is produced by the petitioner at Annexure-D. 4. Acting on the report of the Executive Officer of the Taluka Panchayath, the Chief Executive Officer of the Zilla Panchayath, Belgaum, wrote to the State Government addressing a letter to the Private Secretary to the Minister for Rural development and Panchayat Raj and Minor Irrigation Annexure-E bringing to the notice of the Government the incident that happened, as stated by the Executive Officer. Thereafter, a show cause notice dated 09.05.2006 vide Annexure-A was issued by the Government to the petitioners calling upon them to show-cause why action should not be initiated against them under Section 136 of the Act for removing them from the post of Member and Adhyaksha of the Taluka Panchayath for their acts. Petitioners were given time till 29.05.2006 to submit their written statement and explanation. They were also informed that an opportunity to have their say in person would be provided on 29.05.2006 at 3 p.m., before the Secretary to the Government. The show cause notice further made it clear that if no statement written or oral was received, the matter will be proceeded with, treating that the petitioners did not have any explanation to offer and action would be taken in accordance with the provisions contained under Section 136 of the Act. 5. The show cause notice further made it clear that if no statement written or oral was received, the matter will be proceeded with, treating that the petitioners did not have any explanation to offer and action would be taken in accordance with the provisions contained under Section 136 of the Act. 5. The petitioners submitted their written explanation on 17.06.2006, but they did not appear for personal hearing fixed on 29.05.2006 at 3.00 p.m. In the written reply submitted, the petitioners asserted that their action seeking permission to have a discussion and to pass a resolution in the meeting of the Taluka Pancahayath in the matter pertaining to non-settlement of border dispute between Karnataka and Maharashtra was well within the power and jurisdiction of the Taluka Panchayath and the Executive Officer was wrong in insisting that permission to table the proposal and have discussion on the same to pass a resolution in that regard should not be given. The petitioners denied that they had committed any misconduct. They also contended that they were only exercising their right of freedom of speech and it was their right and duty to express the wishes of the people who elected them as members of the Taluka Panchayath. It was also urged by the petitioners that under Rule 3(m) of the Karnataka Panchayat Raj (Business) Rules, 1999, any matter which, in the opinion of the Adhyaksha is necessary to be brought to the notice of the Panchayat, could be brought before the Taluka Panchayat and permission could be given to discuss the same in the discretion of the Adhyaksha. 6. The State Government has considered the matter in the light of the defence taken by the petitioners and other relevant materials. It has referred to the provisions contained under Section 141(2)(i) (wrongly referred as 141(1)(i) in the impugned order) which prescribes the procedure for conduct of meetings of the Taluka Panchayat. The said provision states thus, “No proposition shall be discussed at any ordinary meeting unless it has been entered in the notice convening such meeting or in the case of a special meeting, in the written request for such meeting. A member may propose any resolution connected with or incidental to the subjects included in the list of business. The Adhyaksha may propose any urgent subject of a routine nature not included in the list of business if no member objects to it. A member may propose any resolution connected with or incidental to the subjects included in the list of business. The Adhyaksha may propose any urgent subject of a routine nature not included in the list of business if no member objects to it. No permission shall be given in the case of a motion or proposition to modify or cancel any resolution within six months after the passing thereof except in accordance with clause (k). The order in which any business or proposition shall be brought forward at such meeting shall be determined by the Presiding Authority who in case it is proposed by any member to give particular proposition, shall put the proposal to the meeting and be guided by the majority of votes given for or against the proposal.”. 7. Referring to the above provision, the State Government has found that the subject matter pertaining to border dispute between Karnataka and Maharashtra was not on the agenda of the ordinary meeting of the Taluk Panchayath. There were no notices for discussion of the said subject at the meeting. Hence, the member had no right to propose or table the said subject for discussion and for passing any resolution. It also found that the matter was not an urgent subject of routine nature which could be proposed for discussion at the instance of the Adhyaksha. It is also evident that the subject was not brought for discussion at the instance of the Adhyaksha but was allowed and taken for discussion by the Adhyaksha at the instance of the Memberpetitioner in W.P.No.1206112006 who was one of the members and who insisted that the matter be taken up for discussion. The State Government has recorded a finding that as per the provisions contained in Sections 145, 146 & 147 of the Act, neither the Adhyaksha nor the Members of the Taluka Panchayath had any power, duty or function to discuss and deliberate the said matter pertaining to the border dispute which was essentially a matter left for a separate Forum having authority to discuss such issues. It was therefore held that the border dispute did not legitimately constitute the duty or responsibility of the Taluka Panchayath to be discussed and resolved and as it was not the function of the Taluka Panchayath the articulation of the same before the Taluka Panchayath was against public interest and for extraneous purposes alien to the duties and functions of the Taluka Panchayath. 8. Based on the above findings, the State Government came to the conclusion that the petitioners were guilty of misconduct alleged against them which entailed the consequences of sanction provided under Section 136 of the Act. Accordingly, holding that the petitioners bad worked against the interests of the Panchayath and of the State by raising the issue which had vitiated the atmosphere for smooth functioning and development of the administration due to the divisive activity creating division among the members of the panchayath on sectarian lines, the petitioners were ordered to be removed from the post of Member and the Adhyaksha of the Taluka Pancahayth with immediate effect. Aggrieved by the same, the present Writ Petitions are filed. 9. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner contends that there was no fair and reasonable opportunity given to the petitioners to have their say. He contends that though time was fixed for the appearance of the petitioners on 29.05.2006 at 3.00 p.m., the petitioners were under the impression that as they had already filed written replies, they would be given time to give their oral statement. It is also contended by the Counsel for the petitioners that once the allegations were denied, the respondent authority was obliged to frame a charge and thereafter proceed in the matter by providing an opportunity to lead evidence. Reliance is placed in this regard by the learned Counsel on a decision rendered by the Apex Court in the case of Khem Chand Vs. Union of India and Others, AIR 1958 SC 300 . It is also contended that the report of the Executive Officer of the Taluka Panchayat was not given to the petitioners and no opportunity Was afforded to them. It is next contended that Section 136 of the Act relates to removal of the Members of the Panchayath but the same was invoked even against the petitioner in W.P.No.12062/2006, who was discharging his duties as Adhyaksha. It is next contended that Section 136 of the Act relates to removal of the Members of the Panchayath but the same was invoked even against the petitioner in W.P.No.12062/2006, who was discharging his duties as Adhyaksha. He draws the attention of the Court to Section 140 which deals with removal of Adhyaksba and Upadhyaksha. Hence, he contends that action if at all any could be initiated and taken against the petitioner in WP.No.12062/2006 only under Section 140(4) of the Act. 10. Dealing with the allegation made charging the petitioners with misconduct, learned Counsel has contended that the actions of the petitioners in expressing their views, feelings and emotions will not amount to misconduct. He has contended that this was not a new incident that was happening as such resolutions were in fact passed in the past and the Deputy Commissioners used to suspend the resolution. He has placed reliance on the decisions of the Apex Court in the case of Union of India and Others Vs. J. Ahmed, AIR 1979 SC 1022 , to contend that the action of the petitioners did not constitute misconduct Reliance is also placed on the judgment rendered in the case of S. Rangarajan Vs. P. Jagjivan Ram and Others, (1989) 2 SCC 574 , to contend that freedom of speech under Article 19(1)(a) means the right to express one’s opinion by words of mouth, writing, printing, picture or in any other manner, and this Fundamental Right can be reasonably restricted only for the purpose mentioned in Article 19(2). He has also placed reliance on the decision reported in the case of President, Municipal Board Shahjahanpur, Through Bishan Chandra Vs. District Magistrate, Shahjahanpur, AIR 1956 All. 369 , in support of his contention that removal of the petitioners on the ground of misconduct was illegal. Reliance is also placed on the decision in the case of Smt. T. Bhagyalakshmi Vs. State of Karnataka and Another, 1999 (1) KLJ 731, to emphasize the fact that there was no persistent remis on the part of the petitioners. 11. The learned Government Pleader has contended that the petitioners had committed misconduct by forcing a discussion on a sensitive subject which was totally outside the scope of the duties and functions of the Taluka Panchayat and incited ill-will among various sections and disturbed peace. The conduct of the petitioners, it is contended, was disgraceful. 11. The learned Government Pleader has contended that the petitioners had committed misconduct by forcing a discussion on a sensitive subject which was totally outside the scope of the duties and functions of the Taluka Panchayat and incited ill-will among various sections and disturbed peace. The conduct of the petitioners, it is contended, was disgraceful. The actions of the member and the Adhyaksha were directed against the Authority of the State and intended to create disharmony in the residents of the area. Referring to the functions of the Taluka Panchayat as mentioned under Sections 145, 146 and 147 of the Act, it is contended by him that petitioners had resorted to acts which were alien to their powers and functions and it was unbecoming of the Members of the Taluka Panchayat to raise such an issue. Learned Government Pleader has also contended that the petitioners had deliberately abstained from the hearing and did not avail the opportunity of personal hearing and hence they cannot be heard to say that there was any violation of principles of Natural Justice. He also asserts that ‘misconduct’ as defined under Section 136 of the Act includes any such disgraceful conduct on the part of petitioners which is highly reprehensible, irresponsible and aimed at disturbing the peace in the locality. 12. I have heard the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader and carefully considered the entire materials placed before the Court. The question that arises for consideration in this writ petition is: “Whether the impugned order passed by the State Government removing the petitioners from the post of Members and Adhyaksha of the Taluka Panchayat is illegal and unsustainable in law?” 13. It has to be noticed at the outset that the petitioners had been removed from their posts on the ground that they had committed misconduct in acting against the interest of the Panchayat and also of the State by raising an issue that was not the concern of the Taluk Panchayat and which vitiated the atmosphere and prevented smooth functioning of the developmental acts and the administration of the Taluka Panchayat. 14. The petitioners were given show-cause notice calling upon them to have their say in the matter. 14. The petitioners were given show-cause notice calling upon them to have their say in the matter. They were also afforded personal hearing by fixing the date of their appearance on 29.05.2006 at 3.00 p.m. Though they did not choose to avail the opportunity of personal hearing afforded, the petitioners submitted their written reply. A perusal of the reply submitted by them makes it clear that they have admitted the fact that the proposal of unifying the area with the State of Maharashtra was well within their jurisdiction and they had acted with an intention to pass a resolution to that effect. They have also stated that the Executive Officer was wrong in asserting that no such permission could be granted to discuss the subject and pass a resolution in that regard. 15. The petitioner in W.P. No. 12062/2006 stated in his reply that as per Rule 3(m) of the Karnataka Taluk Panchayat (Business) Rules, 1999 any matter, which in the opinion of the Adyaksha was necessary to be brought to the notice of the Panchayat would be brought before the Taluka Panchayat and that the resolution to be passed was one such matter in his opinion. He has categorically asserted in the reply submitted that giving permission to discuss any subject of interest to the Taluka Panchayat or to the people in general was within his discretion as Adhyaksha and that he had acted within his power and authority. The reply submitted by the petitioner in the connected writ petition bearing W.P. No. 12061/2006 is also to the same effect, in the sense, he also justifies his action and asserts that the subject was proposed by him with a view to pass a resolution as it was within the powers and authority of the Panchayat. 16. The powers and functions of the Taluk Panchayat are enumerated in Chapter VIII of the Karnataka Panchayat Raj Act, 1993. The Chapter is titled as ‘Functions, Duties and Powers of Taluk Panchayat, Adhyaksha and Upadhyaksha’. Section 145 states that the Taluk Panchayat shall perform the functions specified in Schedule II. 16. The powers and functions of the Taluk Panchayat are enumerated in Chapter VIII of the Karnataka Panchayat Raj Act, 1993. The Chapter is titled as ‘Functions, Duties and Powers of Taluk Panchayat, Adhyaksha and Upadhyaksha’. Section 145 states that the Taluk Panchayat shall perform the functions specified in Schedule II. Sub-clause (2) of Section 145 enjoins a duty on a Taluk Panchayat in so far as the Taluk Panchayat fund at its disposal is concerned to make reasonable provision within the area under its jurisdiction in respect of the matters mentioned therein which include the construction and augmentation of water supply works, filing of half yearly report regarding the activities of Grama Panchayats within the taluk, providing adequate number of class rooms and maintaining Primary school buildings in proper condition, providing water supply and sanitation; and acquiring land for locating the manure pits away from the dwelling houses in the villages. 17. Section 146 of the Act provides that the Government may assign to a Taluk Panchayat functions in relation to any matters to which the executive authority of the Government extends or the functions which have been assigned to the State Government by the Central Government. Section 147 of the Act provides for General powers of the Taluk Panchayat. It States that the Taluk Panchayat shall have power to do all acts necessary for or incidental to the carrying out of the functions entrusted or delegated to it and, in particular, and without prejudice to the foregoing powers to exercise all powers specified under this Act. Section 148 of the Act provides for Standing Committees. The Taluk Panchayat shall have 3 Standing Committees, namely, (a) General Standing Committee; (b) Finance, Audit and Planning Committee; and (c) Social Justice Committee. Section 149 of the Act provides for Functions of the Standing Committee and Section 150 of the Act provides for the procedure to be followed by the Committees. 18. Section 152 of the Act provides for the powers and duties of theAdhyaksha. The Adhyaksha is to be the executive head of the Taluk Panchayat and he is required to convene, preside and conduct meetings of the Taluk Panchayat. He is required to discharge all duties imposed and exercise all the powers conferred on him under the Act and the Rules. He is also required to exercise over all supervision of the financial and executive administration of the Taluk Panchayat. He is required to discharge all duties imposed and exercise all the powers conferred on him under the Act and the Rules. He is also required to exercise over all supervision of the financial and executive administration of the Taluk Panchayat. He has the power to accord sanction upto a total sum of Rs.25,000/- in a year for the purpose of providing immediate relief to those who are affected by the natural calamities in the Taluk. 19. There is no provision in the Act or the Rules which empowers Taluka Panchayath, its members, or its Adhyaksha to discuss any matter regarding transferring any portion of the territory of the State coming within the jurisdiction of that Taluka Panchayath in favour of the neighbouring State. In fact this subject is quite alien and not in any manner connected with the powers, functions and duties of the Taluka Panchayath. The duties, powers, functions as referred to under Sections 145 to 149 of the Act do not either directly or indirectly suggest that the members of the Taluka Panchayath can have a discussion of this nature in the panchayath. The subject does not deal with the administration, the development and the other related welfare measures pertaining to the Taluka Panchayath. Therefore it is very clear that the petitioners had acted beyond their power, jurisdiction and function in venturing into a discussion on the subject and the petitioners were clearly in error in forcing the discussion on the subject in the meeting of the Taluka panchayath. 20. The next question that requires to be considered is whether such an act or conduct on the part of the petitioners can be characterized as one amounting to misconduct for which, action deserved to be taken. Section 136 of the Act deals with removal of members of the Panchayath for misconduct. It reads as under: “The Government if it thinks fit (on the recommendation of the Taluk Panchayat or otherwise and if necessary after obtaining a report from the Zilla Panchayat and considering the same 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.” 21. Section 140 deals with resignation or removal of Adhyaksha and Upadhyaksha. Section 140 deals with resignation or removal of Adhyaksha and Upadhyaksha. sub-clause (4) of Section 140 states that, “Every Adhyaksha and Upadhyaksha of the Taluk Panchayat shall, after an opportunity is afforded for hearing him, (and if necessary after obtaining a report from the Zilla Panchayat and considering the same) be removable from his office as Adhyaksha or Upadhyaksha by the Government for misconduct in the discharge of his duties, for being persistently remiss 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 Taluk Panchayat.”. Sub-clause (5) states that, “an Adhyaksha or Upadhyaksha removed from his office under sub-section (4) may also be removed by the Government from membership of the Taluk Panchayat.”. 22. It is thus clear that the aforementioned provisions contained under Sections 136 and 140 of the Act provide for removal of a member .or an Adhyaksha as the case may be, by the Government if he/she is found to have committed misconduct in the discharge of his /her duties or found to have been guilty of any disgraceful conduct in the discharge of his /her duties. The point to be considered in the instant case is whether the conduct of the petitioners amounts to misconduct or a disgraceful conduct so as to entail a consequence of removal from their post. The term ‘misconduct’ is not defined in the Act. ‘Misconduct’ in general parlance means bad conduct. The dictionary meaning of the word ‘misconduct’ is ‘unacceptable or improper behaviour’ (as can be seen from Oxford Dictionary of English). Any matter pertaining to the border dispute is a sensitive issue. It is an emotive issue having serious repercussions if it is allowed to be raised at different forums, particularly, in the local bodies. Establishment of local bodies such as Gram Panchayats, Taluka Panchayats and Zilla Panchayats has been done with the avowed purpose of establishing local self-governments to take the powers to the Gram Panchayat level so that each unit at the grass-root level will be in a position to find out their need and address the same by taking up developmental activities. Establishment of local bodies such as Gram Panchayats, Taluka Panchayats and Zilla Panchayats has been done with the avowed purpose of establishing local self-governments to take the powers to the Gram Panchayat level so that each unit at the grass-root level will be in a position to find out their need and address the same by taking up developmental activities. These issues relating to border disputes have nothing to do with the local self-government and of providing basic necessities to the people of that area. If these issues are allowed to be raised which are emotive issues having divisive tendency creating division among the members of different language and groups, it cannot but be said that the said acts are against the peaceful and harmonious co-existence of different groups of people in the locality. A member of Taluka Panchayat is elected by the people to discharge his duties and functions and to represent those people in the matter of providing basic infrastructure to the area which he represents which include water supply, roads, drainage, health care etc. Even where a member is elected by a particular group of people speaking a different language, it cannot be said that he is elected for the purpose of fighting against the State and its people and to ensure that the area which he represents be severed from the jurisdiction of the State and be merged in the neighbouring State. The petitioners, unfortunately, seem to think that they have been elected by the group of people who had a desire and willingness to merge their area into the neighbouring State and that it was petitioners’ duty and function to voice the concern of such people who had voted them and strive for the same. Past experience shows that such matters of border dispute being sensitive and emotive go out of control and result in large-scale violence and in mass destruction of public property. The elected representatives of the local bodies cannot be expected to focus on such negative emotive and divisive issues, particularly, by way of taking up the issue at the meeting of the Panchayat and by insisting for a resolution to be passed in that regard. Such a conduct smacks of ulterior motive intended only to disrupt peaceful and harmonious conduct of the proceedings of the Panchayat and also the peaceful and harmonious living of the people of the locality. Such a conduct smacks of ulterior motive intended only to disrupt peaceful and harmonious conduct of the proceedings of the Panchayat and also the peaceful and harmonious living of the people of the locality. An elected representative of a Taluka Panchayat cannot be permitted to indulge in such activities which have such far reaching consequences. In the instant case, the petitioners intended to do precisely what is stated hereinabove and when they were proceeded against by issuing notice alleging such acts on their part, they justified their actions and contended that it was the expression of their freedom of speech and expression, as a Fundamental Right. 23. A Member or Adhyaksha of a Taluka Panchayat cannot exercise his/her Fundamental Right of freedom to say anything and everything and to do such acts in the meeting of the panchayat, unmindful of its consequences, disregarding the contours of his duties, powers and functions. If any member behaves in such an irresponsible manner, such an act and conduct has to be characterised as a misconduct and a disgraceful conduct. It is a misconduct because he is doing something which is directed against the territorial sanctity and the established and recognized, boundaries of the State, which tantamounts to challenging the State Government and its authorities. It is disgraceful because having been elected as the member of the Taluka Panchayath, Belgaum of Belgaum District of Karnataka State, if he insists for a discussion and for passing a resolution in the meeting of the Taluka Panchayat raising border disputes, it creates division between the two linguistic communities and leads to disharmony paralyzing the peace and happiness of the people in the villages. The only intention in having the matter discussed and in intending to have a resolution passed to the said effect was to whip up the divisive forces and to ride over the emotional raze of the people to further their selfish ends. This subject matter cannot, at any stretch of imagination, be brought within the purview of the duties, powers and functions of the Taluka Panchayat and despite the same, if the member of the Taluka Panchayat and the Adhyaksha intended to have a discussion in the matter to pass a resolution to that effect, the same will have to be characterised as a misconduct on the part of the Member or the Adhyaksha who had such a sinister design. 24. 24. Although learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that they were exercising their Fundamental Rights and the action was bonafide not intended to breed ill-will amongst the people, it is clear from the report submitted by the Executive Officer of the Taluka Panchayat and the impugned order passed by the State Government that despite the Executive Officer informing the Adhyaksha and requesting him not to permit any discussion on the subject, the Member concerned and the Adhyaksha of the Taluka Panchayat went ahead with their design and proceeded with the discussion in order to pass a resolution which clearly showed that the petitioners were deliberately acting in the matter with such divisive designs. Therefore, I have no hesitation to hold that the action of the petitioners fall within the purview of misconduct as it is a conduct unbecoming of a Taluka Panchayat Member elected to work for the development of the Taluka Panchayatand for general good of the people of that area. Reliance placed by the learned Counsel for the petitioners on the decision in the case of Chintamanrao and Another Vs. State of Madhyapradesh, AIR 1951 SC 118 , to contend that the petitioners had only exercised their Fundamental Rights is of no assistance. The said judgment has no relevance to the facts and circumstances of the case inasmuch as it cannot be said that a Member of the Taluka Panchayat has got a Fundamental Right to raise such issues in the meeting of the Taluka panchayat in the guise of exercising his freedom of speech and expression, when the said subject has absolutely no connection with the powers, functions and duties enjoined upon the Members and when the subject is of such sensitive and emotive character that it will retard peace and harmony in the locality. It has to be stated here that a platform in the form of a Taluka Panchayat is sought to be made use of by the Adhyaksha or Member for a totally ulterior and extaneous considerations to suit their divisive tendencies and the petitioners cannot claim that it was their Fundamental Right to raise such issues. 25. It has to be stated here that a platform in the form of a Taluka Panchayat is sought to be made use of by the Adhyaksha or Member for a totally ulterior and extaneous considerations to suit their divisive tendencies and the petitioners cannot claim that it was their Fundamental Right to raise such issues. 25. As regards the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioners that proceedings initiated under Section 136 of the Act against the Adhyaksha of the Taluka Panchayat was illegal, it has to be stated that the Adhyaksha of the Taluka panchayat is also a member of the Taluka Panchayat and if he has committed misconduct in his capacity as such and even if the impugned order does not refer to Section 140 under which the Adhyaksha is to be removed, that will not vitiate the impugned order. In any event, Section 140 also has the same effect inasmuch as an Adhyaksha or Upadhyaksha of a Taluka Panchayat can be removed from the post if he is found to be guilty of misconduct or disgraceful conduct. Same is the effect under Section 136 in respect of a member of the Taluka Panchayat. Only because Section 140 is not referred in the impugned order, it does not mean that the order passed is vitiated. All the ingredients mentioned under Sections 136 and 140(4) are satisfied. Therefore there is no substance in this contention. 26. The next contention of the petitioner is that there was no fair and reasonable opportunity, as no charges were framed and no personal hearing was given to the petitioners before they were found guilty of the alleged misconduct. It has to be stated that petitioners were issued with the show cause notice which contained the allegations made against them and also made reference to the report submitted by the Executive Officer. To the said show cause notice, petitioners have given a reply. The allegation made in the show cause notices is admitted by the petitioners. In fact they have justified their action stating that they had right to do so as they had to represent the will of the people who elected them. In such circumstances, the contention of the petitioners that they should have been served with separate articles of charges framed and should have been given an opportunity of explaining their stand, is not legally tenable. In such circumstances, the contention of the petitioners that they should have been served with separate articles of charges framed and should have been given an opportunity of explaining their stand, is not legally tenable. If the petitioners had denied the allegations made, then the question of following a detailed procedure would have arisen. Even otherwise, it has to be noticed that in the instant case while issuing the show cause notice, the State Government had made it clear to the petitioners that they were given opportunity to file a written reply and were also asked to appear in person before the Secretary on 29.05.2006 at 3.00 p.m. for personal hearing. However, the petitioners did not choose to appear before the Secretary to avail the opportunity of personal hearing. They have only filed their replies, that too admitting their conduct in tabling such proposal in the meeting and in discussing the same with an intention to pass a resolution. In the circumstances, the contention of the petitioners that no fair and reasonable opportunity was given to them to have their say in the matter cannot be accepted. 27. The further contention of the petitioners that under the rules of business, the Adhyaksha was entitled to bring for discussion any matter in his discretion is totally misconceived. It has to be stated that the Karnataka Panchayat Raj (Business) Rules, 1999, cannot by any stretch of imagination be interpreted to confer power on the Adhyaksha to bring before the Taluka Panchayat a matter pertaining to the border dispute, particularly for the purpose of passing a resolution to transfer a portion of the territory of the State of Karnataka to the neighbouring State of Maharashtra. Such a matter cannot be termed as a matter necessary to be brought to the notice of the Panchayat or a matter for which permission could be given to discuss in the meeting of the Taluka panchayat. If the Adhyaksha uses his discretion under the Karnataka Panchayat Raj (Business) Rules, 1999, to bring such a matter thinking that it is necessary to be placed before the Panchayat for discussion, then the discretion excersied will be alien to his powers which will be opposed to the very purpose for which the Taluka Panchayat is established viz., for the welfare and well-being of the local area. On the other hand, Section 141(2)(i) which deals with the matters to be discussed and not to be discussed and the manner in which it has to be discussed, clearly spells out that no propositions shall be discussed at any ordinary meeting unless it has been entered in the notice convening such meeting or in the case of a special meeting at the written request of such meeting. 28. The subject taken up for discussion by the petitioners does not fall within the ambit of the powers and functions of the Taluka Panchayat and is in fact outside the scope of Section 141 (2) of the Act. Therefore, the State Government was right and justified in holding that the petitioners had worked against the interest of the Panchayat and also of the State while raising the issue which was not the concern of the Taluka Panchayat and which had the tendency to vitiate the atmosphere for the smooth functioning and the development of the Panchayth. ‘The State Government is also justified in holding that the attitude of the petitioners disclosed divisive tendency intending to create division among the members of the Panchayat on sectarian lines and hence they were guilty of misconduct which entailed their removal from the post of Member and Adhyaksha of the Taluka Panchayat. 29. The judgments referred to and relied upon by the learned Counsel for the petitioners do not deal with the issues that this Court is concerned in this case. Reliance placed on the judgment in the case of Khem Chand Vs.. Union of India & Ors., reported in A.I.R. 1958 S.C 300 in support of the contention that the report of the Executive Officer of the Taluka Panchayat was not given to the petitioners and hence there was no opportunity provided to the petitioners, is untenable in the facts and circumstances of the case as the petitioners have admitted their conduct in raising the issue and permitting discussion on the same. The report of the Executive Officer which contains the said incident and nothing else though not supplied will not, in any manner, result in affecting the right of the petitioners. Hence there is no violation of any principles of natural justice. 30. The judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Union of India and Others Vs. J. Ahmed (Supra), and in the case of S. Rangarajan Vs. Hence there is no violation of any principles of natural justice. 30. The judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Union of India and Others Vs. J. Ahmed (Supra), and in the case of S. Rangarajan Vs. P. Jagjivan Ram and Others (Supra) have no application to the facts of the present case. Likewise the decisions of the Allahabad High Court in the case of P. President, Municap Board Shahajahanpur through Bishan Chandra Vs. District Magistration. Shahajahanpur (Supra) and the decision of this Court reported in the case of smt. T. Bhagyalakshmi Vs. State of Karnataka and Another (Supra), have no relevance to the facts of the present case and the law laid down in those cases has no application to the instant case. The State Government has taken stern action to firmly deal with the divisive acts which throw a potential danger to our society where the need of the hour is to foster unity and cohesion even amidst linguistic division and other diversities. 31. The procedure followed while passing the impugned order is fair and reasonable. The punishment imposed for the illegal and unauthorised activities indulged in by the petitioners also does not call for interference by this Court. Hence, the writ petitions, being devoid of merits, are dismissed.