JUDGMENT : G.Narendar, J. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned High Court Govt. Pleader and the learned counsel for respondent Nos.3 and 4 and the learned counsel for respondent No.8. 2. The facts in brief are that the petitioner was elected as a member of the M.C. Halli gram panchayat and that the petitioner was also elected as the President of the said gram panchayat. That in the course of discharge of his functions as President of the gram panchayat, it is alleged that the petitioner indulged in a misconduct as defined under Section 43-A (v) of The Karnataka Gram Swaraj and Panchayat Raj Act, 1993 (for short 'the Act'), the 8th respondent is the complainant and respondent Nos.3 and 4 are the respective Chief Executive Officer of the Zilla & Taluk Panchayats. Upon receipt of the complaint, the first respondent obtained a report from the 3rd respondent. The third respondent submitted a report on the allegations in the following terms which is as under:- xxx xxx 3. Based on the report, enquiry is said to have been conducted. Matter was taken up on 30.06.2018 and explanations/objections of the petitioner were received, matter was posted to 07.12.2018 and on that date the matter was reserved for orders. Prima-facie, the manner in which the enquiry has been conducted to deprive the petitioner not only of his right as an elected member of the panchayat but also the right to continue in office as a President leaves much to be desired. 4. On perusal of the charges it is seen that in respect of charge No.2 the PDO himself has explained the practice as adopted by the panchayat for executing minor works of the panchayat. It is the admitted practice that for executing minor works, cheques are issued in the name of employees and amounts are drawn and disburse to the labourers and also to provide refreshment and food to the labourers employed by the panchayat for the purpose of executing panchayat work. In the instant case, the fact remains that the father of the petitioner is employed as an attender of the panchayats since 1994 and the petitioner was elected in the year 2016. In the light of the statement of the PDO the mere fact that the attender is a relative of the petitioner cannot be a ground to infer any misconduct. In the light of the statement of the PDO the mere fact that the attender is a relative of the petitioner cannot be a ground to infer any misconduct. The fact remains that the execution of the works and the expenditure incurred are not denied. Merely because the attender is also is the father of the petitioner cannot be a ground to ignore the fact that he is an employee of the panchayat and the same cannot be lost sight of. 5. If that be the admitted practice and if the said practice is not faulted with and there being no allegation that the amount so drawn has been misappropriated. Mere fact that cheque is drawn in the name of the father, cannot be ground to hold or presume otherwise that the petitioner is guilty of any misconduct. 6. The other allegation is that the petitioner had issued a license to a organic fertilizer shop without the concurrence of the PDO. Though there is no provision for the President to independently issue any trade license, it is merely a procedural violation and even in that case, there is no allegation that the petitioner has indulged in any corrupt practice nor is there any allegation that the license has been issued for any extraneous consideration. 7. In the light of the above discussion, this court is of the opinion that the punishment imposed by invoking the provisions of Section 43-A of the Act is unjustified. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned Annexure-C is quashed. The membership of the panchayat shall be restored to the petitioner and the petitioner shall be restored as the President of the gram panchayat. Petition stands ordered accordingly. No order as to costs.