P ARVINDAKSHAN Vs. PRESIDENT PALLIKUNNU GRAMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is an Upper Division Clerk in the Pallikkunnu Grama Panchayat. While so, under Ext. P-1, the President of the Panchayat, 1st respondent herein, suspended the petitioner in exercise of his powers under Rule 8 of the Kerala panchayat Raj (Control Over Officers) Rules, 1997 (for short 'the Rules' ). Ext. P-1 order is dated 25-3-2008. Ext. P-l is challenged in this writ petition.

(2.) THE petitioner contends that, in terms of the provisions of the Panchayat raj Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and the Rules made thereunder, ext. P-1 order of suspension will continue to be operative only if it is placed before the Panchayat Committee at its next meeting held by the Panchayat, after the order of suspension and it is ratified by the Panchayat Committee as such. It is common case that Ext. P-1 order was placed by the President of the Panchayat before the panchayat Committee in the next meeting held after Ext. P-1 viz. , 10-6-2008. It is also on record that the suspension of the petitioner was discussed by the Panchayat committee in its meeting held on 10-6-2008. But, apparently, the Panchayat committee in its meeting held on 10-6-2008 did not take a decision to ratify the suspension and on the said premise, it is contended by the petitioner that Ext. P-1 order of suspension should be deemed to have been cancelled, by operation of law. Apparently, the suspension was ratified by the Panchayat Committee in its next meeting on 24-6-2008. But the question is whether the statute contemplates that an order of suspension of an employee of the Panchayat Common Service, below the gazetted rank, issued by the President of the Panchayat, in terms of the provisions of the Act and the Rules framed thereunder, requires to be ratified by the Panchayat Committee, for its continued operation, in the next meeting of the panchayat held after the order of suspension is issued.

(3.) COUNSEL on both sides have not argued on the merits of the order of suspension as such, but only made submissions on the provisions of the law, which authorises the President to issue an order of suspension and which also deals with the validity of the order of suspension and the requirement of approval by the panchayat Committee as such.