SARADA Vs. NAGALASSERY GRAMA PANCHAYAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is the Head Mistress of the Government Lower Primary School, Kothachira in Palakkad District, within the local limits of the first respondent Panchayat. The 2nd respondent is the President of that Panchayat. The President issued Ext. P1 letter to the petitioner to be present for an enquiry in respect of an allegation against the petitioner that she had misbehaved towards a member of the Panchayat Council. The petitioner did not respond. This resulted in Ext. P2, a notice as to why charge shall not be framed against the petitioner in terms of R.4 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj (Control over Officials) Rules, 1997. That notice was issued by the Secretary of the first respondent Panchayat. The petitioner responded in Ext. P3 pointing out that neither the Secretary nor the President did have the authority to proceed against the petitioner by framing charge sheet. In spite of that a charge sheet, Ext. P4 was issued on the petitioner on behalf of the Grama Panchayat by its President, 2nd respondent. It is in the above circumstances the petitioner has approached this Court challenging Exts. P1 and P4 and seeking a direction forbearing the Panchayat from taking any disciplinary action against the petitioner. The petitioner submits that she is a Government servant. Therefore the Panchayat does not have any power to proceed against her. Her service had never been lent to the Panchayat. The Rules made mention of in Ext. P2 does not have any application so far as she is concerned. Therefore, the action of the President of the Panchayat is illegal and incompetent and liable to be quashed, the petitioner submits.

(2.) Gaining strength from the provisions contained in S.176 and S.181 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj, 1994 and the Rules mentioned above, the respondents submit that the service of the petitioner had been lent to the Panchayat when the school was transferred to the Panchayat. Therefore, in every respect the President of the Panchayat and the Panchayat can proceed against the petitioner for imposing minor penalty as provided for in R.4 of the said Rules. R.2(d) defines the word 'Official' and it will include all officers lent by the Government to the service of the Panchayat. Therefore, the Panchayat can proceed against the petitioner as service of the petitioner is lent to the Panchayat. This contention is sought to be substantiated, placing reliance on the Order No. A6/21231/95 dated 28.9.95 of the District Educational Officer, Palakkad produced as Ext. R1(b) along with the rejoinder filed by the respondents. The said order states that the Government had issued G.O.(P) 189/95 dated 18.9.95 in accordance with the provisions contained in the Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 to transfer certain Institutions, Schemes etc. to the Grama Panchayat and Municipalities and it is on the basis of that order, Ext. R1(b) was issued transferring certain schools in Palakkad District to the local authorities. The school where the petitioner functions as Head Mistress is also thus transferred to the first respondent Panchayat. When that institution is so transferred the services of the employees in the said institution also automatically stand transferred. Therefore, the petitioner comes within an employee made mention of in S.191 so that the Panchayat can proceed by way of disciplinary action in accordance with the said Rules, the respondents submit. It is also stated that there is an entrustment of institution in terms of Ext. R1(b). So the service of the petitioner stands transferred to the Panchayat. So the Panchayat can proceed against the petitioner.

(3.) Ext. R1(b) mentioned above does not improve the case of the respondents to have control over the petitioners. It is submitted by the counsel for the respondents that Ext. R1(b) has been issued in terms of S.176 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act It reads as follows: