Former Panchayat President Gets Fresh Hearing As Karnataka HC Quashes Disqualification Over Vague Fund-Diversion Notices

The petitioner served as President of Dodda Kavalande Gram Panchayat from 1 April 2018 to 3 July 2020.

She and her successor received a show-cause notice alleging diversion of Panchayat funds and proposing action under Section 43A of the Karnataka Gram Swaraj and Panchayat Raj Act, 1993.

Following an enquiry, the petitioner was removed and disqualified from contesting the next election by an order dated 25 February 2026.

She challenged that order, contending that the initial notice did not specify the allegations, the enquiry afforded no adequate opportunity to respond, and the decision did not identify her specific misconduct.

The State submitted that the petitioner had received documents, filed replies to two notices, and participated in the enquiry; the enquiry report attributed diversion of ₹1,76,598 to her tenure.

Section 43A of the Karnataka Gram Swaraj and Panchayat Raj Act, 1993 governs removal and disqualification proceedings against Panchayat office-holders.

Because an order under the provision may impose serious civil consequences, the statutory requirement of an enquiry and an opportunity of being heard requires a meaningful, adequate opportunity to answer the allegations—not merely a summary process.

The Court relied on the Division Bench decision in Bhavani and Another v. State of Karnataka, 2020 SCC OnLine Kar 2011, which held that the enquiry and hearing requirements under Section 43A must be given substantive effect, particularly because disqualification curtails the affected person’s right to participate in the democratic process.

The Court accepted that notices had been issued, documents supplied, replies filed, and an enquiry held.

However, neither show-cause notice specified the amount allegedly diverted during the petitioner’s tenure, and the record did not disclose sufficient detail of the enquiry to establish that she had a reasonable opportunity to answer the allegations.

The report apportioned the alleged diversion between the petitioner’s tenure and that of her successor, making clarity about the petitioner’s individual responsibility especially important.

In light of Section 43A’s consequences and the requirements stated in Bhavani, the process was inadequate.

The Court quashed the order dated 25 February 2026 and the enquiry report dated 4 July 2026.

It directed the petitioner to appear before the third respondent on 11 November 2026, permitted her to file a detailed response based on the available records and seek copies of the Audit Report and CEO’s report, and required the third respondent to provide a reasoned recommendation after affording her an opportunity to be heard.

The proceedings were to be completed within 30 days of her first appearance.