IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR.J.B.KOSHY & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI THURSDAY, THE 5TH MARCH 2009 / 14TH PHALGUNA 1930 WA.No. 546 of 2009 --------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN W.P.(C).NO.1899/2009 DATED 29/01/2009 .................... APPELLANT/ PETITIONER: -------------------------------------- PARASSERI HASSAN, S/O. HAMSA, PARASSERI HOUSE, AMBAZHAKKODE, KOTTAPPADAM P.O., PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. MR.SUNNY MATHEW. RESPONDENTS/ RESPONDENTS: ------------------------------------------------ 1. THE SECRETARY, KOTTOPPADAM GRAMA PANCHAYATH, KOTTOPPADAM P.O., PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 2. P.K.SHANAVAS KHAN, POLLAKKUNNAM HOUSE, THIRUVIZHAKUNNU P.O., ALANALLUR, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 3. THE OMBUDSMAN FOR LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT INSTITUTIONS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05/03/2009,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: prv. J.B. Koshy,Ag.C.J. & V. Giri, J. ---------------------------------------- W.A. No. 546 of 2009 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 5th day of March, 2009 Judgment Koshy, Ag.C.J. Appellant, a member of the ministerial staff working in a private school functioned as President of Kottoppadam Grama panchayat and second respondent filed a complaint before the Ombudsman that after making attendance in the school records, he created records that he travelled for the panchayat hiring private vehicle and obtained money. Notice was given by the Ombudsman and that was opposed by the appellant contending that there is no merit in the allegation. He went to the panchayat with permission from the school authorities and the petition itself was hit by delay. The Tribunal found that delay was caused consequent of delay in getting documents under the Right to Information Act and that delay has to be condoned. Further, it is also found that a detailed enquiry is required in the matter. Therefore, the matter was sent for enquiry as provided under section 271 (I) (3) of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act. It was also suggested that if he was found guilty after enquiry, departmental action also can be taken. It is W.A. No.546/2009 2 contended that there is no prima facie finding that he is guilty. A prima facie finding as such is not necessary, but, Ombudsman was satisfied that there was a prima facie case to be enquired into. That finding is also evident from a reading of the impugned order. It is for the Enquiry Commissioner to find out whether there is substance in the allegation and petitioner will be free to make all his defence before the Enquiry Commissioner. We are not making any opinion on the merits of the case as parties have to substantiate it before the Enquiry Commissioner. In the above circumstances, we see no ground to interfere in the impugned judgment. Appeal dismissed. J.B.Koshy Acting Chief Justice V. Giri Judge vaa