JUDGMENT : 1. Appellant is the petitioner in Writ Petition No.207513 of 2017 challenging the order Annexure-J dated 04th October 2017 passed by the first respondent-Principal Secretary to Rural Development and Panchayat Raj Department and had made a prayer to set aside the same and to direct the respondents to continue him as Adhyaksha of Nagaidali Grama Panchayat, Chincholi Taluk, Kalaburagi District till he completes his tenure. The learned single Judge, by order dated 07th March, 2018 dismissed the writ petition holding that, the impugned action of the respondent is appropriate which appears to be just and proper. Against the said order, this intracourt appeal is preferred. 2. The brief facts of the case are that, the appellant is the resident of Kallu village, Chincholi Taluk, Kalaburagi District and he was elected as President of Nagaidalayi Grama Panchayath of Chincholi Taluk, Kalaburagi District from June 2015 to June 2017. On 07th May 2016, the Audit Department submitted report regarding the audit conducted for the period 2014-15 and 2015-16. Based on the said audit report, the Regional Commissioner, Kalaburagi recommended for initiation of disciplinary proceedings against the persons who are involved in the irregularities of execution of works as noted in the audit report. The Regional Commissioner, vide his letter dated 10th June 2016 recommended to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner the appellant herein. He has narrated about nine instances, upon which it was directed to proceed with an enquiry. The Zilla Panchayat, after receipt of the communication made by the Regional Commissioner, has in turn directed the Assistant Commissioner by letter dated 25th June 2016 to make a report on the points raised by the Regional Commissioner. The Assistant Commissioner, had only investigated the matter by taking the statements made by the petitioner to the Panchayat Development Officer on nine allegations made in the recommendation letter of the Regional Officer and submitted report to the Zilla Panchayat from whom he had received communication. The villagers also made a complaint to the Assistant Commissioner of Sedam Sub-Division to initiate action. The villagers also made a complaint to the Assistant Commissioner of Sedam Sub-Division to initiate action. Upon receipt of report made by the Assistant Commissioner, the Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Panchayat Kalaburagi recommended for initiation of action against the petitioner the appellant herein under Section 43(A) and 48(4) of the Karnataka Panchayat Raj Act, 1993 (for short hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'.) The second respondent-Zilla Panchayat also forwarded the report made by the Assistant Commissioner in this regard. Thereafter, the first respondent-Principal Secretary, Rural Development and Panchayat Raj Department issued a show cause notice to the appellant-petitioner on 17th October 2016 alleging that as per the report of the Assistant Commissioner and the recommendation made by the Regional Commissioner, there are irregularities in execution of the works and for more than ten months no developmental works have been taken up and it us further alleged that the petitioner-appellant herein has created bogus vouchers. In response to the show cause issued by the first respondent dated 17th October 2016, the appellant-petitioner submitted a detailed reply refuting the allegations made in the show cause notice and also made a prayer to drop the proceedings. Upon considering the reply made by the appellant-petitioner, the first respondent directed the appellant-petitioner to appear before him for enquiry. The appellant had appeared before him on 09th February 2017 and on all the dates whenever the hearing was adjourned. The enquiry that was fixed on 18th March 2017 stood adjourned due to the absence of Presiding Officer and the next date was on 17th April 2017. It was directed to the second respondent-Chief Executive Officer of the Zilla Panchayat to submit a report on or before 28th February 2017 but no report was submitted. Thereafter, the matter was adjourned to 21st April 2017 on which date the second respondent was further directed to depute one senior officer who had the knowledge of the case before the first respondent in the enquiry. On 08th June 2017 the first respondent directed the second respondent-Zilla Panchayat to submit a report verifying regarding the execution of works under the Gandhi Oath programme for the year 2013-14 and to obtain the report within a week. On 15th July 2017, a decision was taken to remove the petitioner-appellant from the post of President of the Nagayidlayi Grama Panchayat without even holding an enquiry. On 15th July 2017, a decision was taken to remove the petitioner-appellant from the post of President of the Nagayidlayi Grama Panchayat without even holding an enquiry. The first respondent, for the purpose of removing the appellant from the post of President, has invoked power under Section 43(A) and 48(4) of the Act, as per Annexure-J dated 04th October 2017. Against the same the writ petition was filed. 3. Before the writ court the petitioner-appellant had taken a specific ground that, for invoking Sections 43(A) and 48(4) of the Act and before removing and Member, he/she should be provided with an opportunity of being heard and after such enquiry, as it deems necessary and if such member has been found guilty of misconduct or has disgracefully conducted or has become incapable of performing his/her duties as a Member, he/she shall be discharged of his/her duties. It is the further ground that when it was observed that there were about nine lapses of serious irregularities committed by the petitioner-appellant and Zilla Panchayat was directed to involve in the matter; the Assistant Commissioner was further directed to enquire into; and the first respondent after accepting the report from the Zilla Panchayat and from the Assistant Commissioner, has issued show-cause notice. But, in compliance of Section 43(A) of the Act, no opportunity has been provided to the petitioner-appellant and he has not been heard in this regard. Hence, the impugned action of the first respondent in issuing Annexure-J is violation of Section 43(A) of the Act. 4. Initiation of action of removal of the petitioner-appellant from the post of President is by exercising power under Section 43(A) of the Act. Such power could be exercised only on the proved guilt of misconduct in discharging his/her duties. But, in the instant case no misconduct or allegations have been proved, hence, removal is bad in law. As per the proceedings, it demonstrate that the Regional Commissioner had directed the Zilla Panchayat to enquire into the matter on the basis of the audit report and, in turn, the Assistant Commissioner was further directed to enquire into the matter. But, none of these Officers have provided an opportunity, much less, the appellant-petitioner has not been heard in this regard. But, none of these Officers have provided an opportunity, much less, the appellant-petitioner has not been heard in this regard. Even the first respondent who is the Principal Secretary of Rural Development and Panchayat Raj Department has issued a show-cause notice to show reasons as to why he shall not be punished by removing from office of the President under Section 43(A) of the Act. The issuance of show-cause notice itself is to the effect that the affected person has to offer his explanation either accepting or denying the allegations. The show-cause notice issued thereafter and the conducting of enquiry, from time to time was adjourned and finally the second respondent was directed to make a report with regard to mismanagement of Gandhi Oath programme. Even before the receipt of said report the action has been taken, which goes to show that in order to pass the impugned order of removal of the appellant-petitioner from the office of Adhyaksha. Absolutely there was no finding with regard to the proving of allegations and on the face of it, it show that no opportunity was provided to the appellant-petitioner. Though these were the pleadings before the learned single Judge and it is submitted that, the learned single Judge has not examined the matter and the pleadings have been rejected on surmise and hypothetically and hence it is the case of the appellant-petitioner to allow this appeal and also the Writ Petition. To substantiate his submissions, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant relied upon the judgment of this Court in the case of SMT. T. BHAGYALAKSHMI VS STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ANOTHER reported in ILR 1998 KAR 478 wherein it has been held that Subsection (4) of Section 48 of the Act makes it very clear that an action of removal is warranted, if there is persistent default on the part of the Adhyaksha in discharge of his duties and not otherwise. The authorities conferred with the power to remove on such charges being proved, are required to hold an enquiry and to satisfy on the veracity or otherwise of the charge. 5. The authorities conferred with the power to remove on such charges being proved, are required to hold an enquiry and to satisfy on the veracity or otherwise of the charge. 5. Elected members of Grama Panchayat filed impleading application to come as proposed respondents No.6 to 17 under Order I Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and the said application after hearing both the sides, has been allowed and the impleading applicants are permitted to come on record as proposed respondents No.6 to 17 and the counsel for the appellant-petitioner was directed to carryout amendment in the cause-title. 6. It is the principal submission of the learned counsel appearing for the respondents is that on the order passed by the first respondent removing the petitioner from the post of Adhyaksha of Nagaidlayi Grama Panchayat, issued an election notice dated 06th July 2018 to hold election to the post of Adhyaksha. Calendar of events have been passed. Under these circumstances, as per the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of SHAJI K. JOSEPH v. V. VISHWANATH AND OTHERS decided in Civil Appeal No.1629 of 2016 disposed of on 22nd February 2016 in which it has been held that the Courts and Tribunals shall not interfere once the calendar of events are issued. Copies of the calendar of events have been produced. By filing memo dated 23rd July 2018 he had produced some documents, viz. the Inspection report for the years 2014-15 and 2015-16, proceedings of Grama Panchayat, beneficiary selection of Rajiv Gandhi Rural Housing Scheme and the First Information Report registered against the petitioner in Crime No.161 of 2016 dated 30th September 2016. The sum and substance of the argument of the learned counsel is that, the irregularities alleged against the appellant-petitioner have been proved and this initiation of enquiry against the petitioner is at the instance of the elected members of Nagaidlayi Grama Panchayat who have no confidence on the appellant-petitioner. When the appellant-petitioner lose the confidence of the elected members, he shall not continue in the office of the President even for a day. The case of the impleading respondents who are the elected Members have been taken note of seriously by the Zilla Panchayat and the jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner. Thereafter, the appellant-petitioner was issued with show-cause notice and after providing adequate and fullest opportunity, the impugned order has been passed. The case of the impleading respondents who are the elected Members have been taken note of seriously by the Zilla Panchayat and the jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner. Thereafter, the appellant-petitioner was issued with show-cause notice and after providing adequate and fullest opportunity, the impugned order has been passed. Hence, it is not open for the appellant-petitioner to complain about the want of providing an opportunity as provided under Sections 43(A) and 48(4) of the Act. 7. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and have gone through the papers made available. At the outset, it is to be stated that despite all these pleadings are available, the learned single Judge had dismissed the case of the petitioner by stating that the order passed by the first respondent-Principal Secretary is appropriate order and it appears to be just and proper. These are not the reasons to be given while dismissing the case. When a person approaches the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the court shall consider each and every pleading which appropriate to decide the issue and shall not shun away the grounds taken without assigning adequate and sufficient reasons. Persons who approach the courts have got right of reasons and are entitled for considering their case and the same shall not be rejected with an unreasoned order. 8. After having felt that the learned single Judge has not provided sufficient reasons and considered the case, this Court in appeal since it is an intracourt appeal, we have heard the appellant-petitioner and also given serious thought to the pleadings and documents made available. Audit report is the cause for initiation of enquiry against the appellant-petitioner. Having satisfied with the audit report, the Regional Commissioner addressed a letter to the Chief Executive Officer of Zilla Panchayat on 10th June 2016 narrating therein about nine instances of irregularities which covers for the year 2014-2015 for 13th Financial period and other instances pertaining to Indira Awas Yojona, Basava Scheme for granting houses and it was alleged that the appellant-petitioner has committed irregularities. These are the serious allegations alleged against the appellant petitioner and in case if it is not properly inquired into, it remains on record throughout and the appellant-petitioner or the aggrieved person will have to face the consequences in furtherance. These are the serious allegations alleged against the appellant petitioner and in case if it is not properly inquired into, it remains on record throughout and the appellant-petitioner or the aggrieved person will have to face the consequences in furtherance. He may not participate in any democratic process, unless and until the allegations made against him are disproved or set aside. Under the circumstance, he filed the petition stating that the impugned action of the first respondent-Principal Secretary in removing the petitioner from office of President is unconstitutional and arbitrary and is contrary to the democratic process. When a person is selected democratically under the provisions of the Act, he shall continue till his term is completed and his removal from the post is subjected only in accordance with Sections 43(A) and 48(4) of the Act. In case of simple noconfidence, it is for the elected Members to remove him from the Post and it is a plain case of noconfidence with Adhyaksha. But for the said purpose, there is a period mentioned within which there cannot be repetition. However, when allegations are made against the Adhyaksha may on misappropriation of funds, fraud or misuse of office and abuse of power, then he shall have to be provided with an opportunity and without providing an opportunity if the powers are invoked, then it would be colourable exercise of power and the action has not been acted properly and in accordance with the provisions of law. 9. Be that as it may, the Regional Commissioner has addressed a letter to the Zilla Panchayat to go into the matter and in turn the Zilla Panchayat directed the Assistant Commissioner to inquire into the matter. There is also a complaint made by the elected representatives making allegations against the appellant-petitioner. The overall allegations of the elected representatives; communication made by the Regional Commissioner on the basis of the Audit report; and inquiry made by the Assistant Commissioner, all have gone through the recommendations made by the Regional Commissioner, but none of these Officers or authorities have provided any opportunity of being heard to the appellant-petitioner. No doubt, this is not a regular enquiry to go into the matter in detail, like a disciplinary enquiry or like a trial in a criminal case. No doubt, this is not a regular enquiry to go into the matter in detail, like a disciplinary enquiry or like a trial in a criminal case. But, for the purpose of satisfaction of the Regional Commissioner who has recommended the case of the appellant-petitioner for initiating action under the provisions of the Act. The letter addressed by the Regional Commissioner to the Chief Executive Officer of the Zilla Panchayat is an internal communication between the two office for the purpose of satisfying themselves to recommend to Government to take appropriate action against the appellant-petitioner, since under the provision, it is only the Government viz. the Principal Secretary of Rural Development and Panchayat Raj Department could initiate action. At the time of initiation of action, it is the Secretary who is the competent authority who has to take action and for the said purpose a show-cause notice dated 17th October 2016 was issued to the appellant-petitioner directing him to show-cause the reasons within fifteen days as to why action shall not be taken as per the provisions under the Act. Pursuant to the same, a detailed reply has been made by the appellant-petitioner. Throughout his reply Annexure-F dated 08th November 2016, it is the case of the appellant-petitioner that the allegations made in respect of abuse of office for the period 2014-15 in respect of 13th Financial period for development works, the same is not applicable for him since he was not an Adhyaksha for the said period. Similarly, for explanations 2, 3, 4 and 5, it was his specific defence that for the said period he was not at all an Adhyaksha of the Grama Panchayat and the said allegations cannot be attributed to him. When such is the specific defence taken by the appellant-petitioner, there could have been a definite enquiry into the matter, but no such enquiry is forthcoming. The period in which the appellant-petitioner was not an Adhyaksha of Grama Panchayat, he cannot be held responsible for the alleged acts. Despite the impugned order has been passed. Similarly, for explanation 7, which pertains to the period 2015-16 for MGNREGA Project work Order No.285 which was disbursed or processed as per the Taluk Executive Officer's Order has passed the bill and hence it does not pertain to the appellant-petitioner. Despite the impugned order has been passed. Similarly, for explanation 7, which pertains to the period 2015-16 for MGNREGA Project work Order No.285 which was disbursed or processed as per the Taluk Executive Officer's Order has passed the bill and hence it does not pertain to the appellant-petitioner. If at all there is an irregularity, it would apply to the Executive Officer and not to the appellant-petitioner. Similarly, with regard to explanations 8 and 9, he has stated that, these allegations not pertain to his tenure and are altogether of a different period and he could not have been held liable. This explanation made to the show-cause notice has not been considered by the respondent authorities and hence there is a error as per the judgment referred to above and also as it is mandatory under Sections 43(A) and 48(4) of the Act. It was his specific defence taken by the appellant-petitioner that after issuance of show-cause notice, he had appeared and made available all the materials. When the proceedings are on, on 08th June 2017, the second respondent-Zilla Panchayat had directed to make enquiry with regard to the mismanagement said to have been committed for the year 2013-14 which is available at item No.85 of the proceedings and item No.89 of the proceedings pertains to the letter addressed to the Chief Executive Officer as per the order passed by the Principal Secretary on 18th June 2017 for deputing a person for enquiry on this subject. Item No.94 is the order passed for removal of Adhyaksha from Nagaidlayi Grama Panchayat and it was placed for approval of the Hon'ble Minister. These proceedings, which are the part of this Court, would disclose that the allegations made in the show-cause notice which were rebutted by the appellant-petitioner have not been gone into and no enquiry has been conducted or the petitioner has been heard in the matter. Though the Principal Secretary sought explanation and particulars from Zilla Panchayat, but even before securing the particulars, order of removal of appellant-Petitioner from the post of Adhyaksha has been passed vide impugned order dated 04th October 2017. Though the Principal Secretary sought explanation and particulars from Zilla Panchayat, but even before securing the particulars, order of removal of appellant-Petitioner from the post of Adhyaksha has been passed vide impugned order dated 04th October 2017. In the said order, again the period of irregularity or misusing and abuse of office pertains to the period 2014-15 of the 13th Financial period, against which the appellant-petitioner has specifically stated that he was not Adhyakhsa at the relevant point of time and that aspect has not been discussed. Actually, the Principal Secretary has not considered even a single defence taken by the petitioner, however, he has removed him from the post of Adhyaksha of Nagaidlayi Grama Panchayat which is a violation of Section 43(A) and 48(4) of the Act. 10. This Court in the case of SMT. T. BHAGHYALAKSHMI (supra) at paragraphs 9 and 10 has observed thus: 9. What is "persistent default" came up for consideration in Chhotey Lal and Others v State of Uttar Pradesh, Division Bench of Allahabad High Court after considering the dictionary meaning of the word 'persist', has made the following observation: "Learned Counsel's contention is that the word 'persists' connotes the idea of successive defaults in spite of warning or protest and opposition; and that a single default in the performance of a duty or a series of single defaults in the performance of different duties will not bring the conduct of the Board within the ambit of the section. The verb 'persist' is defined in Murray's Dictionary as "To continue firmly or obstinately in a state, opinion, purpose, or course of action, especially against opposition, or remonstrance". It implies a course of action coupled with an intention to continue in that course. The members of a Board must be presumed to know what their duties are, and if they repeatedly made default in the performance of these duties I think that they can properly be described as persisting in making default". (emphasis supplied) 10. Subsection (4) of Section 48 of the Act empowers the authority to remove the Adhyaksha or Upadhyaksha as the case may be on being satisfied that there is persistent remiss in discharge of his/her duties. (emphasis supplied) 10. Subsection (4) of Section 48 of the Act empowers the authority to remove the Adhyaksha or Upadhyaksha as the case may be on being satisfied that there is persistent remiss in discharge of his/her duties. This would demonstrate or indicate that what warrants an action under subsection (4) of Section 48 is a continuous neglect on the part of Adhyaksha or Upadhyaksha as the case may be in discharge of duties. The word 'persist' or 'persistently' suggests an attitude of mind. In certain situation, even a single act by a person may reveal persistent attitude if the person sticks to his act of omission after he has been warned or his/her attention has been drawn to it. In the instant case, no such thing is forthcoming nor respondent 2 held an enquiry as revealed from the proceedings to satisfy that petitioner was persistent or that she continued to issue licences even after she was informed that law did not permit. On the other hand, in both the replies she has confessed that she has issued under certain circumstances and prays for excuse. If after the circular dated July 27, 1996 and the reply, she had continued to issue licences, perhaps the authority would have been right in holding that there is persistent default. It is also the definite case of the petitioner that she has issued licence on the recommendation of the Secretary and further contends that Secretary must have forged some of the licences. In the circumstances, respondent 2 before making the order impugned ought to have satisfied by making an enquiry but without making any such enquiry proceeds to make the order impugned solely on the report of the Deputy Secretary and the Chief Executive Officer of the panchayat and therefore the order impugned is not sustainable. 11. In this regard, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent submitted that when a election proceedings have begun by issuance of calendar of events, the Courts shall not interfere. It is pertinent to observe that when a calendar of events have been issued for the purpose of election of Adhyaksha or Upaadhyaksha for the first time fresh and after election of body as a whole, yes it is not for this Court to interfere. It is pertinent to observe that when a calendar of events have been issued for the purpose of election of Adhyaksha or Upaadhyaksha for the first time fresh and after election of body as a whole, yes it is not for this Court to interfere. But for the exercise of power under Sections 43(A) and 48(4) of the Act, the law requires that it shall be done only after providing an opportunity. When opportunity is not has been provided, which is the bedrock of the administration of Justice and when such opportunity is not provided, it results in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. There shall not be any arbitrariness on the part of the respondents. Here, though the provisions specifically state that, there shall be an opportunity provided, but the first respondent Principal Secretary had not provided any opportunity to the petitioner and though the appellant-petitioner had taken defence in the reply given to the showcause notice, the same have not been considered. It was his specific case that, for the year 2014-15, he was not the President and the irregularities done in the 13th Financial period does not pertain to his tenure and hence is not applicable to the appellant-petitioner. These are the defence taken by him which goes to the root, but the first respondent Principal Secretary has not taken any serious note of it This is nothing but arbitrariness on the part of the first respondent and violation of Article 14 of Constitution of India. When such being the case, this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has extraordinary power to interfere. In the facts and circumstances of this case, we hold that the impugned action is contrary to Sections 43(A) and 48(4) of the Act and violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Hence, we hold that the impugned action is bad in law. Annexure-J dated 04th October 2017 passed by the first respondent is set aside. Petitioner to continue as Adhyaksha of Nagaidlayi Grama Panchayat till his term is over. However, liberty is reserved to the respondents to proceed further against the appellant, in case if they are so aggrieved, strictly and purely in accordance with the provisions of law. In the result, Appeal/petition are allowed.