ORDER : Sri D.P. Ambekar, learned counsel for the petitioner has filed a memo praying to dismiss the first prayer as withdrawn. Accordingly, the first prayer is dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to pursue before the first respondent by filing objections, if any. 2. The petitioner has filed the present writ petitions for writ of certiorari to quash the letter at Annexure-D dated 21.01.2017, letter at Annexure-E dated 04.04.2017, letter at Annexure-F dated 06.07.2017 and order at Annexure-G dated 02.11.2017. I. Facts of the Case: 3. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner was elected as Member of the Gram Panchayat, Chikka Rugi, Tq. Sindagi, for a period of five years from 2005-2010. Thereafter, she came to be elected as President of the said Gram Panchayat from November 2007 to March 2010. On the basis of the complaint filed by one Bheemagonda Sangappa Kabadagi against the petitioner and the then Secretary before Lokayukta alleging substandard road work, selecting ineligible persons as beneficiaries in housing scheme and disbursing amount to 12 beneficiaries without construction of the house being done by them, the Lokayukta after holding enquiry submitted report as contemplated under Section 12(3) of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984 (for short ‘the Act’) on 26.12.2016. 4. On the basis of the said report, the first respondent wrote a letter dated 21.01.2017 vide Annexure-D to the third respondent for taking further action. On the basis of the said letter, the third respondent written a letter dated 04.04.2017 to the fourth respondent as per Annexure-E to take further action and based on the said communication, the fourth respondent in turn communicated to the fifth respondent-PDO on 06.07.2017 as per Annexure-F to recover the amount from the petitioner. Subsequently, by an order dated 02.11.2017, the fourth respondent ordered to recover the misappropriated amount of Rs.3,00,000/- with interest at 15% as per AnnexureG. Hence, the petitioner is before this Court for the relief sought for. 5. The respondents have not filed statement of objections. II. Arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties: 6. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties to the lis. 7. Sri D.P. Ambekar, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the respondents have not complied with the provisions of Section 12(4) of the Act before taking any further action on the recommendation made by the Upalokayuta under Section 12(3) of the Act. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties to the lis. 7. Sri D.P. Ambekar, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the respondents have not complied with the provisions of Section 12(4) of the Act before taking any further action on the recommendation made by the Upalokayuta under Section 12(3) of the Act. The communications at Annexures-D to F between the authorities and order at Annexure-G passed by the Taluka Executive Officer to recover misappropriated amount of Rs.3,00,000/- with interest at 15% is without any notice or opportunity to the petitioner and the same is in violation of principles of natural justice. He would further contend that the impugned action of the respondents is in utter violation of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, he sought to allow the writ petitions. 8. The learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for respondent Nos.1, 6 and 7 and Sri Prashanth S. Kumman, learned counsel for Sri S.S.Kumman, learned Special Public Prosecutor for respondent No.2 and Smt. Ratna N. Shivayogimath, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3 to 5 sought to justify the impugned action of the respondents contending that in pursuance of the recommendation made by the Upalokayukta and in terms of the provisions of Sections 157(2) and 246(8) of the Karnataka Gram Swaraj and Panchayat Raj Act, 1993, the respondents have to take action and recover the amount with interest at 15%. Accordingly, after communication between the authorities, the Taluka Executive Officer has passed the final order dated 02.11.2017. Therefore, learned counsel for the respondents sought for dismissal of the writ petitions. III. The point for determination: 9. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, the only point that arises for our consideration in the present writ petitions is: “Whether the respondents-authorities are justified in proceeding against the petitioner to recover the alleged misappropriated amount of Rs.3,00,000/- with interest at 15% in the facts and circumstances of the present case?” IV. Consideration: 10. We have given our anxious consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the entire papers available on record carefully. 11. Consideration: 10. We have given our anxious consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the entire papers available on record carefully. 11. It is the specific case of the petitioner that she was elected as Member of the Gram Panchayat in the year 2005 and continued upto 2010 and in the meanwhile, she came to be elected as President of fifth respondent-Gram Panchayat from November, 2007 to March, 2010 and rendered services as Adhyaksha without any blemish. On the basis of the complaint made by one Bheemgonda Sangappa Kabadagi, the Upalokayukta submitted a report under Section 12(3) of the Act to the first respondent-Disciplinary Authority. If such report is made, it is for the Disciplinary Authority to consider the said report as contemplated under the provisions of Section 12(4) of the Act which reads as under: “12. Reports of Lokayukta, etc. (1) xxx (2) xxx (3) xxx (4) The Competent Authority shall examine the report forwarded to it under subsection (3) and within three months of the date of receipt of the report, intimate or cause to be intimated to the Lokayukta or the Upalokayukta the action taken or proposed to be taken on the basis of the report.” 12. On careful reading of the provision of Section 12(4) of the Act and perusal of the material available on record, it would clearly indicate that before taking any further action by the respondents as per Annexures-D to G, the Disciplinary Authority has not examined the report forwarded by the Upalokayukta under Section 12(3) of the Act. All the communications culminating into the order for recovery vide Annexure-G do not reflect that the first respondent-State Government has examined the report sent by the Upalokayukta. When the statute mandates examination of the report submitted under Section 12(3) of the Act, it is the bounden duty of the competent authority to which the said report is submitted to examine the report before taking any action on the recommendation made by the Upalokayukta. 13. The object of examination of report under Section 12(3) of the Act is to ensure that public servant is not subjected to any unwarranted disciplinary action. When the statute mandates examination of the report, the competent authority has to comply such mandate as contemplated under Section 12(4) of the Act and failure in that regard, invalidates the decision taken directly on such report. When the statute mandates examination of the report, the competent authority has to comply such mandate as contemplated under Section 12(4) of the Act and failure in that regard, invalidates the decision taken directly on such report. A careful reading of the impugned order would clearly depicts that the first respondent or the competent authority has not examined the report nor taken any decision either to accept or to reject the Upalokayukta’s report. Omission of examination of the report under Section 12(4) of the Act amounts to noncompliance of mandatory requirement as contemplated under Section 12(4) of the Act resulting in the impugned orders being passed in violation of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and in violation of the mandatory procedure as contemplated. The same cannot be sustained. 14. It is expected that the disciplinary authority/competent authority has to examine the report independently and take an independent decision before proceeding further. The impugned communication between the respondents and ultimate culmination into the impugned recovery order at Annexure-G passed by the Taluka Executive Officer is absolutely without application of mind and without giving opportunity and notice to the petitioner. The same cannot be sustained. 15. We are afraid of the contention taken by the learned counsel for the respondents that the respondents after considering the entire material on record proceeded to pass the impugned orders. The respondents proceeded to pass impugned order ignoring the very mandate of Section 12(4) of the Act. Therefore, all the communications/proceedings pursuant to the report of the Upalokayukta cannot be sustained. For the reasons stated supra, the point raised in the writ petitions has to be answered in the negative holding that the respondents-authorities are not justified in passing the impugned recovery order against the petitioner without following the procedure as contemplated. V. Conclusion: 16. However, it is needless to observe that it is open for the first respondent/disciplinary authority to examine the report and take appropriate decision in the matter in accordance with law. 17. The impugned correspondence at Annexures-D to F between the authorities was not communicated to the petitioner but ultimately, the final order at Annexure-G dated 02.11.2017, passed by the Taluka Executive Officer is communicated to the petitioner to recover the amount of Rs.3,00,000/- with interest at 15%, the same cannot be sustained. 18. In view of the aforesaid reasons, the writ petitions are allowed in part. 18. In view of the aforesaid reasons, the writ petitions are allowed in part. The impugned order at Annexure-G dated 02.11.2017 is hereby quashed reserving liberty to the first respondent to examine the report of the Upalokayukta under Section 12(4) of the Act and take appropriate decision in accordance with law. Ordered accordingly.