ORDER : This writ petition is filed challenging the order dated 12.4.2016 passed by the respondent No.1 vide Annexure-A. 2. The case of the petitioner is that one Sri.Abdul Azeez had filed a representation dated 22.2.2011 to the Village Panchayat for shifting the Autorickshaw stand from Pariladaka to some other place. Since, his representation was not considered, he approached this Court by filing W.P.No.14737/2011. This Court by order dated 30.10.2012 has directed the Grama Panchayat to consider the representation of the said Abdul Azeez and to pass appropriate orders within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of the said order. Pursuant to the order passed by this Court, the Panchayat vide Annexure-D has passed a resolution and rejected the request of the said Abdul Azeez. Inspite of that, he has filed a contempt petition before this Court in CCC No.408/2013. The Division Bench of this Court by order dated 24.6.2013 has dismissed the contempt petition reserving liberty to the complainant therein to challenge the resolution, if he chooses to do so. Without challenging the resolution, the complainant has given complaint against the petitioner herein to the Lokayuktha. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Lokayuktha, Mangalore has sent a report dated 30.10.2013 vide Annexure-G to the Additional Director General of Police, Lokayuktha, Bangalore stating that the directions passed by this Court has not been complied. Pursuant to the same, the Lokayuktha has sent a letter to the Government on 8.5.2014 requesting to take action against the petitioner. Pursuant to that, proceedings has been initiated against the petitioner under Section 43A of the Karnataka Panchayat Raj Act, 1993 (for short “the Act”) and passed the impugned order dated 12.4.2016 vide Annexure-A removing the petitioner from the post of the Member of the Grama Panchayat. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner is before this Court. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that pursuant to the directions issued by this Court dated 30.10.2012 vide Annexure-B, the Panchayat has considered the representation of the said Abdul Azeez and rejected his request. In the contempt petition filed by the said Abdul Azeez, the Division Bench of this Court by order dated 24.6.2013 vide Annexure-E has dismissed the contempt petition reserving liberty to the complainant to challenge the resolution before the Panchayat. Inspite of that, he has given complaint to the Lokayuktha, Mangalore against the petitioner. In the contempt petition filed by the said Abdul Azeez, the Division Bench of this Court by order dated 24.6.2013 vide Annexure-E has dismissed the contempt petition reserving liberty to the complainant to challenge the resolution before the Panchayat. Inspite of that, he has given complaint to the Lokayuktha, Mangalore against the petitioner. The Lokayuktha without conducting any enquiry has sent the report to the Government vide letter dated 8.5.2014. Consequently, the respondent No.1 without following the due procedure of law under Section 43A of the Act, without considering the decision of this Court passed in the earlier orders vide Annexure-sB and E and resolution passed by the Panchayat vide Annexure-D has passed the impugned order to remove the petitioner from being member of the Grama Panchayat. Hence, he sought for allowing the petition. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the State has submitted that pursuant to the letter submitted by the Lokayuktha vide letter dated 8.5.2014, the proceedings has been initiated under Section 43A of the Act. The petitioner has been given notice. Inspite of that, he has not appeared and therefore on the basis of the materials available on record, the authorities have passed the impugned order. Hence, he sought for dismissing the writ petition. 5. One Sri.Abdul Azeez has given representation to the Panchayat for shifting the autorickshaw stand from Pariladaka Taluk to some other place and since his representation was not considered, he has approached this Court in W.P.No.14737/2011. This Court by order dated 30.10.2012 has disposed of the said writ petition with the following observation extracted hereunder: 2. It is evident from the materials on record that petitioner had sent a representation to the Taluk Panchayat, Bantwal for shifting of the said autorickshaw stand and Taluk Panchayat, Bantwal for forwarded the same to the third respondent along with its letter at Annexure- ‘B’ dated 22.2.2011. The third respondent is directed to consider the said representation and pass appropriate orders thereon in accordance with law within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Writ petition stands disposed of accordingly. No costs. 6. Pursuant to the directions of this Court dated 30.10.2012, the Panchayat has passed the resolution vide Annexure-D and rejected the request of the said Abdul Azeez. Inspite of that, he has filed contempt petition before this Court in CCC No.408/2013. Writ petition stands disposed of accordingly. No costs. 6. Pursuant to the directions of this Court dated 30.10.2012, the Panchayat has passed the resolution vide Annexure-D and rejected the request of the said Abdul Azeez. Inspite of that, he has filed contempt petition before this Court in CCC No.408/2013. This Court by order dated 24.6.2013, has dismissed the contempt petition reserving liberty to the complainant to challenge the resolution, if he chooses to do so. Instead of challenging the resolution, he has filed a complaint to the Lokayuktha. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Lokayuktha, Mangalore has sent a report dated 30.10.2013 vide Annexure-G to the Additional Director General of Police, Lokayuktha, Bangalore stating that the directions passed by the Hon’ble Court has not been complied. Pursuant to the same, the Lokayuktha has sent a letter to the Government on 8.5.2014 requesting to take action against the petitioner. Accordingly, proceedings has been initiated against the petitioner under Section 43A of the Act. Section 43A of the Act reads thus: 43A. Removal of members for misconduct. The Government if it thinks fit, on the recommendation of the Grama Panchayat, or otherwise, 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. 7. It is very clear from Section 43A of the Act that before removing any member of the Panchayat, he has to be given an opportunity of being heard and after such enquiry, the competent authority has to pass orders. 8. Before adverting to the various contentions raised, the contention of the learned Additional Government Advocate that issuance of showcase notice and affording an opportunity to reply to the same is by itself sufficient and is to be construed to be a part of the inquiry process and requires to be considered. 9. The issuance of the show cause notice and an opportunity afforded to the petitioner to reply relates to a pre-inquiry stage. 9. The issuance of the show cause notice and an opportunity afforded to the petitioner to reply relates to a pre-inquiry stage. As was rightly held by this Court in Writ Petition No.201726 of 2017 (LB-RES), in the case of Shivanagouda v. State of Karnataka and Others, by order dated 15.09.2017, the issuance of show-cause notice and considering the reply should not be treated as a substitute or as supplementing the inquiry as mandated under Section 43A and Section 48(4) of the Act. Having addressed this contention as above, the contentions regarding adherence to principles of natural justice during the inquiry proceedings are considered herein below. 10. The impugned order has been passed purportedly under Sections 43A and 48(4) of the Karnataka Gram Swaraj and Panchayat Raj Act, 1993. It is no doubt true that the show-cause notice has been issued. The specific case of the petitioner is that he was unwell and he was under treatment at Adarsh Hospital and he could not attend the enquiry on that day and to that effect he has produced the medical certificate vide Annexure-L. Section 43A of the Act specifically provides that the member who is subjected to the inquiry is to be afforded an opportunity of being heard. Section 48(4) of the said Act also provides that “an opportunity is afforded for hearing him”. 11. This requirement apart from being prescribed under the statute also flows from the general principle that the nature of inquiry relating to removal of elected members being quasi-judicial necessarily contemplates adherence to principles of natural justice which would include affording an opportunity of personal hearing. 12. The Apex Court in the case of Ravi Yashwanth Bhoir Vs. District Collector, Raigad and others reported in (2012) 4 SCC 407 while dealing with proceedings relating to disqualification of a President of the Municipal Council has, in detail, stated the principles that are required to be followed in any inquiry and dealt with the expression ‘misconduct’. 13. The Apex Court while dealing with the procedure required to be adopted in the inquiry has observed that there should be strict compliance with the principles of natural justice and that “principles of natural justice require a fair opportunity of defence to such an elected office bearer.” Para30 of the judgment is extracted hereinbelow: “30. 13. The Apex Court while dealing with the procedure required to be adopted in the inquiry has observed that there should be strict compliance with the principles of natural justice and that “principles of natural justice require a fair opportunity of defence to such an elected office bearer.” Para30 of the judgment is extracted hereinbelow: “30. There can be no quarrel with the settled legal proposition that removal of a duly elected member on the basis of proved misconduct is a quasi-judicial proceeding in nature. [Vide Indian National Congress (I) v. Institute of Social Welfare] This view stands further fortified by the Constitution Bench judgments of this Court in Bachhitar Singh v. State of Punjab, and Union of India v. H.C. Goel. Therefore, the principles of natural justice are required to be given full play and strict compliance should be ensured, even in the absence of any provision providing for the same. Principles of natural justice require a fair opportunity of defence to such an elected office-bearer.” 14. It is also observed that the elected representatives cannot be removed unless a clear case is made out, as such representative is discharging duties in exercise of a statutory right and also represents the interest of those who have elected him. It is further observed that removal would cast a stigma and hence proceedings ought to be strictly viewed. The Apex Court has also observed: “31. Undoubtedly, any elected official in local self-government has to be put on a higher pedestal as against a Government servant. If a temporary Government employee cannot be removed on the ground of misconduct without holding a full fledged inquiry, it is difficult to imagine how an elected office-bearer can be removed without holding a full fledged inquiry” 15. In the case on hand, even though notice has been issued to the petitioner he has not appeared before the competent authority and he has not submitted his reply. The contention of the petitioner is that he has produced medical certificate vide Annexure-L and that he has been advised to take rest and hence he could not be present on that day. Inspite of that, the impugned order has been passed. The finding given by the respondent No.1 in the impugned order is contrary to the materials available on records and the same is passed without application of mind. Inspite of that, the impugned order has been passed. The finding given by the respondent No.1 in the impugned order is contrary to the materials available on records and the same is passed without application of mind. The respondent No.1 only relied on the recommendations of the Lokayuktha and passed the impugned order and there is no independent application of mind. Hence, the impugned order is unsustainable. 16. From reading the impugned order, it is very clear that there is no opportunity being given to the petitioner before passing the impugned order as per the provisions of Section 43A of the Act. 17. In view of the above, the impugned order vide Annexure-A is unsustainable and is liable to be quashed. 18. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 12.4.2016 vide Annexure-A is hereby quashed. The matter is remitted to the respondent No.1 to initiate proceedings afresh under Section 43A of the Act. To avoid issuing further notice, the petitioner is directed to appear before the respondent No.1 on 30.9.2019 at 3.00 p.m. Thereafter, the respondent No.1 is directed to hear the parties and after giving opportunity to the parties shall pass appropriate orders in accordance with law within three months from the date of appearance of the parties.