ORDER : 1. The petitioner has sought for a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the enquiry report dated 28.02.2025 submitted by respondent No.3 in Case No. RCM-ELN1/47/2024 which the petitioner was disqualified under Section 43-A(v) of the Karnataka Gram Swaraj and Panchayat Raj Act, 1993 (henceforth referred to as 'Act, 1993'). 2. (i) The petitioner was elected as a member of the respondent No.6 - Panchayat on 30.12.2020. The petitioner claims that during the financial year 2022-23, a sum of Rs.55,45,338/- was collected by the panchayat as tax but only a sum of Rs.43,90,688/- was deposited into the account of the panchayat as on 31.03.2023. The petitioner therefore alleged that a sum of Rs.11,54,650/- was misappropriated. He also alleged that some materials were procured by the panchayat in violation of the Karnataka Transparency in Public Procurement Act, 1999 and payments were made to certain individuals in an illegal manner. He therefore, lodged a complaint on 06.04.2023 with the respondent No.4 requesting him to initiate suitable action. The respondent No.4 constituted a Special Investigation Team to enquire into the allegations and the Special Investigation Team, after investigation, was of the opinion that there was misappropriation of the funds in the panchayat. (ii) The petitioner further claims that certain individuals had fabricated and forged revenue documents concerning 5 guntas of Rajakaluve running in Sy.No.63 of Halaguru Village and got their names entered in the revenue records. In that regard, the petitioner had submitted a complaint to the Deputy Commissioner, Mandya, requesting him to initiate suitable action against the individuals. Following the complaint, the respondent No.5 conducted an enquiry and submitted a report to the respondent No.4 confirming that the khata of 5 guntas of Rajakaluve in Sy.No.63 was illegally transferred to private individuals and that revenue records were fabricated. (iii) The petitioner claims that the Auditor of the Mandya Circle submitted a report dated 19.10.2023 confirming that there were financial irregularities and misappropriation of funds by some officials of the panchayat. The petitioner who was aware of similar such illegal and unlawful activities approached this Court in W.P.No.22638/2024 seeking appropriate directions against the then Panchayat Development Officer. The petitioner contends that in view of these many issues, the then Panchayat Development Officer was harboring ill-will against him. A complaint against petitioner was lodged by Mr. The petitioner who was aware of similar such illegal and unlawful activities approached this Court in W.P.No.22638/2024 seeking appropriate directions against the then Panchayat Development Officer. The petitioner contends that in view of these many issues, the then Panchayat Development Officer was harboring ill-will against him. A complaint against petitioner was lodged by Mr. Lokesh at the instance of the then Panchayat Development Officer on 19.08.2023, alleging that the wife of the petitioner had supplied electrical items to the panchayat through a business entity named "Shree Sachin Electronics". It was also alleged that the panchayat had issued two cheques in favour of Shree Sachin Electronics, one for Rs.61,600/- and another for Rs.66,400/-. On this basis, it was alleged that the petitioner was directly interested in the transaction of the panchayath and thereby had violated Section 43-A of the Act, 1993. Therefore, the respondent No.4 was requested to initiate appropriate proceedings for disqualification of the petitioner. On receipt of the complaint, respondent No.4 forwarded the same to respondent No.5 to conduct an enquiry and submit a report. The respondent No.5 however, instead of conducting an enquiry, inspected the documents maintained by the panchayat and submitted a report on 20.09.2024. (iv) The petitioner contends that the respondent No.5 did not hear him and the report submitted to the respondent No.4 was one sided. The respondent No.4 then directed the respondent No.5 to seek an explanation from the petitioner. The respondent No.5 who had by then submitted a report to the respondent No.4 issued a show-cause notice on 16.10.2024 calling upon the petitioner to submit his explanation. The petitioner submitted his explanation on 22.10.2024, which was forwarded to the respondent No.4 on 04.11.2024. The respondent No.4 after receiving the inspection report by communication dated 04.11.2024, submitted a report dated 11.11.2024 to the respondent No.3. In the said report, respondent No.4 recorded a finding that the petitioner had committed misconduct as defined under Section 43-A(v) of the Act, 1993 and therefore, recommended institution of a formal enquiry. The respondent No.3 then held proceedings in No.RCM-ELN1/47/2024 and conducted an enquiry, purportedly without affording fair and reasonable opportunity and submitted a report dated 28.02.2025 to the respondent No.2. The respondent No.2 held an enquiry in case No.RDPR 246 GPA 2025 purportedly without providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the petitioner. The respondent No.3 then held proceedings in No.RCM-ELN1/47/2024 and conducted an enquiry, purportedly without affording fair and reasonable opportunity and submitted a report dated 28.02.2025 to the respondent No.2. The respondent No.2 held an enquiry in case No.RDPR 246 GPA 2025 purportedly without providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the petitioner. (v) The petitioner claims that the proceedings before the respondent No.2 was scheduled on 23.07.2025 but the proceedings was cancelled on 23.07.2025 and without issuing fresh notice, proceedings were held on 24.07.2025. On 24.07.2025, the respondent No.2 hurriedly concluded the proceedings without providing an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner. He then passed the impugned order disqualifying the petitioner from the membership of the panchayat. (vi) Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner is before this Court. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner raised the following contentions:- (i) that the proceedings before the respondent No.2 was without following principles of natural justice and without providing sufficient opportunity to the petitioner to establish his innocence. He contended that respondent No.2 has proceeded hastily without providing an opportunity of being heard and the same is evident from the order sheet maintained by the respondent No.2. (ii) that the respondent No.5 has no role in the proceedings under Section 43-A of the Act, 1993 and it is only the State Government, which is empowered to take action to disqualify a member under Section 43-A of the Act, 1993. He therefore, contends that the whole procedure adopted by the respondent Nos.3, 4 and 5 falls foul of Section 43-A of the Act, 1993. (iii) that the decision to purchase materials from the electrical shop that stood in the name of wife of the petitioner is a collective decision of the panchayat and therefore, the petitioner cannot be held responsible for such purchase. (iv) that the shop is now managed by one Mr. Vinod and therefore, the payment was not made to the wife of the petitioner and the recipient is Mr. Vinod. (v) that the petitioner was not privy to any decision to purchase materials from the shop that stood in the name of the wife of the petitioner. He invited the attention of the Court to the resolution approving expenses for the period March, 2021 and submitted that the petitioner did not have knowledge about the purchase made. Vinod. (v) that the petitioner was not privy to any decision to purchase materials from the shop that stood in the name of the wife of the petitioner. He invited the attention of the Court to the resolution approving expenses for the period March, 2021 and submitted that the petitioner did not have knowledge about the purchase made. (vi) He contends that purchases were made during COVID-19 when the situation was very dynamic and panchayat had to purchase these materials to meet the needs of the general public. He therefore, contends that assuming that the materials were purchased from the shop owned by the wife of the petitioner, since such purchases were made during COVID-19, it should be treated as an exception. He contends that complaint to disqualify the petitioner is a backlash of the complaints lodged by the petitioner against the Panchayat Development Officer and other members and therefore, is not honest and bonafide. 4. The respondent No.6 has opposed the writ petition and has filed a detailed statement of objections contending that the statement of accounts of the panchayat at Karnataka Gramina Bank for the period 01.04.2020 to 31.03.2021 confirmed payment of Rs.66,400/- to Shree Sachin Electronics by a cheque No.839619. Likewise, for the period 01.04.2021 to 31.03.2022, a sum of Rs.61,600/- was paid to Shree Sachin Electronics by a cheque bearing No.839618. It is contended that the cash bill dated 03.03.2021 for Rs.61,600/- is signed by the wife of the petitioner. It is also contended that DC Bill No.64/2020-21 dated 31.03.2021 shows that an amount of Rs.1,41,000/- was drawn in favour of Shree Sachin Electronics. It is further claimed that as per the inspection report of the respondent No.5 dated 06.09.2024, there was no shop by the name Shree Sachin Electronics in Halaguru Town. Thus, it is claimed that the petitioner was aware that the purchases were made from an establishment, where he had direct interest. It is therefore, contended that impugned proceedings leading up to disqualification of the petitioner and the same does not warrant interference. 5. The learned counsel for the respondent Nos.4 to 6 reiterated the above contentions and submitted that the petitioner being recipient of certain funds of the panchayat, was rightly disqualified under Section 43-A(v) of the Act, 1993 and hence, the same does not warrant interference. 6. 5. The learned counsel for the respondent Nos.4 to 6 reiterated the above contentions and submitted that the petitioner being recipient of certain funds of the panchayat, was rightly disqualified under Section 43-A(v) of the Act, 1993 and hence, the same does not warrant interference. 6. The learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent Nos.1 to 3 submits that adequate opportunity was given to the petitioner to represent against the action initiated under Section 43-A of the Act, 1993. She does not dispute the fact that the proceedings that were scheduled on 23.07.2025 were not held on that day but were held on 24.07.2025. She contends that the learned counsel for the petitioner had appeared before the respondent No.3 on 23.07.2025 thereby showing that the petitioner had knowledge that the proceedings were adjourned to 24.07.2025. She therefore, contends that the petitioner cannot now allege that no opportunity was given to him to represent his case. She contends that after hearing the petitioner, case was posted for orders and the impugned order was passed disqualifying the petitioner. Thus, she submits that there was no error in the proceedings conducted by the respondent No.3 as well as respondent No.2 and therefore, prays that the petition be dismissed. 7. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent Nos.1 to 3 and the learned counsel for the respondent Nos.4 to 6. 8. A perusal of the documents furnished by the respondent No.6 does indicate beyond doubt that certain purchases were made by the panchayat from Shree Sachin Electronics, which is a business establishment, that stood in the name of wife of the petitioner. The petitioner being a member of the panchayat, cannot feign ignorance that such purchases were made from the business establishment that stood in the name of his wife. In ordinary circumstances, this would have been a clear violation of Section 43-A(v) of the Act, 1993 and the petitioner would have been disqualified for having a direct interest in the transaction of the panchayat. However, it needs to be noted that these purchases were made by the panchayat during a time when COVID-19 had gripped the country, where all business establishments were shutdown. However, it needs to be noted that these purchases were made by the panchayat during a time when COVID-19 had gripped the country, where all business establishments were shutdown. The items that were purchased from the business establishment of the wife of the petitioner were 10 HP water pumps, which were then essentially needed by the panchayat to meet the COVID-19 situation. Since the petitioner had enabled such purchases in precarious circumstances, he cannot be held responsible and cannot be accused of being interested in the transaction brought about by the panchayat. The situation during COVID-19 was extremely dynamic and panchayat had to act with alacrity to meet critical situation. Section 43-A of the Act, 1993 did not contemplate any exceptions such as COVID-19. Therefore, notwithstanding the fact that the petitioner had interest in the transaction brought about by the panchayat, he cannot be held responsible and cannot be disqualified under Section 43-A(v) of the Act, 1993 as the decision to purchase the electrical motors was collective decision of the panchayat during COVID-19 pandemic and the petitioner cannot be held responsible. 9. Even otherwise, it is seen that for an action under Section 43-A of the Act, 1993, proceedings have to be commenced by the State Government and not by respondent No.5. It is for the respondent No.2 to be satisfied that a case under Section 43-A of the Act, 1993 is made out and then it may call upon the respondent No.3 to conduct an inspection and submit a report based upon which, it would take further action. However, in the instant case, the respondent No.5 has entertained a complaint and escalated the report before the respondent No.4, which in turn has placed it before the respondent No.3, who placed it before the respondent No.2. Therefore, the procedure adopted in disqualifying the petitioner is in gross violation of the procedure contemplated under Section 43-A of the Act, 1993. Hence, on the above grounds, the impugned order passed by the respondent No.2 disqualifying the petitioner under Section 43-A(v) of the Act, 1993 warrants interference. 10. Consequently, this writ petition is allowed . dated 12.09.2025 passed by respondent No.2 disqualifying the petitioner under Section 43-A(v) of the Karnataka Gram Swaraj and Panchayat Raj Act, 1993 is quashed. Likewise, the report dated 28.02.2025 submitted by respondent No.3 to the respondent No.2 in case No.RCM-ELN1/47/2024 is also quashed.