Judgment :- Venugopala Gowda, J. 1. Jurisdiction of the 2nd respondent-Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Panchayat, in directing the 3rd respondent-Executive Officer, Taluk Panchayat, to take immediate steps to hand over the powers and functions of the ‘Adhyaksha’, to the ‘Upadhyaksha’ of the 4th respondent-Panchayat, vide Annexure-F is in question in this writ petition. 2. The material facts of the case are: The petitioner was elected on 17.05.2010, as a member of the 4th respondent. Subsequently, she was elected as the ‘Adhyaksha’ of the 4th respondent. On the basis of a complaint lodged by one Rajkumar, Lokayuktha Police, on 21.05.2011, registered a case against the petitioner, in Crime No.5/2011, for the offense punishable under Sections. 7, 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Petitioner was arrested. On a bail petition being filed, the Special Judge, Bidar, ordered the release of the petitioner, on certain terms and conditions. 3. In the background of the said case, the 2nd respondent, on 25.05.2011, submitted a proposal under Section 48 (4) & (5) of Karnataka Panchayat Raj Act, 1993 (for short, the Act), to the Government, to remove the petitioner from post of Adhyaksha. Further, by making a reference to the said case and a communication dated 24.05.2011 received from the 3rd respondent and also the proposal dated 25.5.2011 submitted to the Government, the 2nd respondent having formed an opinion that, petitioner has misused the power; committed the misconduct and failed to perform the functions of the post of Adhyaksha, issued a direction to the 3rd respondent, on 13.06.2011 vide Annexure-F, to take immediate action under Section 62(3) of the Act, to handover the powers and functions of the Adhyaksha to the Upadhyaksha of the Panchayat. The validity of this direction is under challenge in this writ petition. 4. Sri Amresh S. Roja, Learned Advocate for the petitioner contended that: (i) 2nd respondent has no jurisdiction to direct the 3rd respondent to take steps to handover the functions/powers of Adhyaksha, to the Upadhyaksha. (ii) Petitioner cannot be divested of the powers and functions of the office to which she was duly elected, merely on account of the registration of a criminal case, which was only on account of the political rivalry and that, there being no conviction for the offence, in respect of an act involving any moral turpitude, the impugned action is wholly illegal. (iii) There is violation of principles of natural justice, since no opportunity of hearing of whatsoever nature was provided to the petitioner. 5. Sri Manvendra Reddy and Sri A. Syed Habeeb, Learned Advocates for the respondents, on the other hand, contended that: (i) A Criminal case was registered against the petitioner, who is a public servant, for the offences punishable under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the P.C. Act, she was arrested and was in judicial custody from 21.05.2011 to 25.05.2011. Hence, she is incapacitated to exercise the powers and perform the functions of ‘Adhyaksha’. (ii) The Government having been appraised of the registration of criminal case and arrest of the petitioner, was requested to remove the petitioner from the post of ‘Adhyaksha’ and awaiting the decision of the Government, the impugned direction was issued, keeping in view the provision under Section 62(3) of the Act. (iii) The impugned action is not malafide or illegal. The same was issued in public interest, since the petitioner, by continuing in office is likely to misuse the power/office of the post of ‘Adhyaksha’. 6. The powers and functions of the Adhyaksha are regulated by the provisions in Chapter IV of the Act. The Adhyaksha is not a Government servant, though, the Adhyaksha has to be deemed as a ‘public servant’ within the meaning of Section 21 of the Indian Penal Code, in view of Section 286 of the Act. The Act confers on the State Government the power of control and supervision over the Gram Panchayats and its office bearers. These powers are enumerated in Sections 48 and 62 of the Act. Sub-Sections (4) and (5) of Section 48 being material for deciding the case, the same read thus: “Section 48(4) :- Every Adhyaksha and Upadhyaksha of Grama Panchayat shall, after an opportunity is afforded for hearing him, (and if necessary after obtaining a report from the Taluk Panchayat and considering the same) be removable from his office as Adhyaksha or Upadhyaksha by the (Government) for being persistently remiss (or guilty of misconduct) in the discharge of his duties and an Adhyakaha 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 Grama Panchayat. Section 48(5):- An Adhyaksha or Upadhyaksha removed from his office under sub-Section (4) may also be removed by the (Government) from membership of the Grama Panchayat.” 7. The functions, duties and powers of Gram Panchayat, Adhyaksha and Upadhayksha are enumerated in Chapter IV of the Act. Section 62 provides for the powers and duties of Adhyaksha and Upadhyaksha. Sub- Section (3) being material for deciding the case, the same reads thus: “Section 62(3):- The Upadhyaksha of the Gram Panchayat shall exercise the powers and perform the duties of the Adhyaksha when the Adhyaksha is absent, on leave or is incapacitated from functioning.” 8. An Adhyaksha or Upadhyaksha of a Gram Panchayat can be removed from the office as Adhayaksha or Upadhyaksha as the case may be, by the Government, only after affording an opportunity of hearing to the person concerned, for being persistently remiss or guilty of misconduct in the discharge of the duties of the office. That power is admittedly a power to punish and is vested in the Government. There is no provision in the Act, even for the Government, to suspend or temporarily divest an Adhyaksha or Upadhyaksha of the powers and functions of the office, pending finalization of the proposal submitted or proceedings initiated under sub-Sections (4) & (5) of Section 48 of the Act. There is no provision in the Act, empowering the 2nd respondent to issue the direction as per Annexure-F i.e., to handover the powers and functions of the Adhyaksha to the Upadhyaksha of the Panchayat, on account of a proposal submitted to the Government to remove the Adhyaksha, in exercise of the power under sub-Section (4) of Section 48 of the Act. 9. At the cost of repetition, it is to be observed that, Gram Panchayat is a creature of a statute and the powers and functions of the Adhyaksha or Upadhyaksha are all regulated by the Act. There is no inherent power either in Government or any other Authority, to make any interim arrangement, in exercise of power under sub-Section (3) of Section 62 of the Act, pending consideration of the proceedings under Section 48(4) of the Act against the Adhyaksha. If, the Legislature had the intention that, mere institution of a criminal case against the holder of an electorate office any lead to an order of suspension, it could have stated so, in clear terms. If, the Legislature had the intention that, mere institution of a criminal case against the holder of an electorate office any lead to an order of suspension, it could have stated so, in clear terms. The Act does not provide for either a suspension of an elected representative such as Adhyaksha or Upadhyaksha or other kind of interim arrangement being made by the Government or any other Authority, to handover the powers and functions of the Adhyaksha to the Upadhyaksha. The provision relating to disqualification to hold an office should be clear and unambiguous like a penal law. In the event, the statute is not clear, recourse to strict interpretation must be made for the construction thereof. 10. In the instant case, undeniably, there is neither absence on leave nor removal of the petitioner from the post of ‘Adhyaksha’. Hence, no casual vacancy of Adhyaksha has arisen. The power to remove Adhyaksha or Upadhyaksha has been conferred on the Government as per sub-Section (4) of Section 48 of the Act. Though, a reference was made on 25.05.2011 by the 2nd respondent, the Government in exercise of the power under Section 48, has not passed an order, removing the petitioner from her office as Adhyaksha. Sub-Section (3) of Section 62 of the Act can be invoked, only when the Adhyaksha is absent, on leave or is incapacitated from functioning. As of now, the petitioner has not incurred the disqualification. Thus, the petitioner is not incapacitated from functioning as the Adhyaksha of the 4th respondent. 11. Even otherwise, the 2nd respondent has not been conferred with the power under the Act, to issue the direction of the nature, noticed supra. The impugned memorandum/ action, which is stigmatic, is also without authority of law and is illegal. In the result, the Writ Petition is allowed and Annexure-F is quashed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.