IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR MONDAY, THE 4TH OCTOBER 2010 / 12TH ASWINA 1932 WP(C).No. 7672 of 2010(H) --------------------- PETITIONER : ----------------- P.D.LEELAMMA, SECRETARY (SPECIAL GRADE), PERUMANNA GRAMA PANCHAYATH, PERUMANNA, KOZHIKODE. BY ADVS. SRI.P.P.JACOB SRI.T.P.GOPAKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. THE MANAGING COMMITTEE OF THE PERUMANNA GRAMA PANCHAYATH, PERUMANNA, KOZHIKODE, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT. 2. SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE DIRECTOR OF PANCHAYATH, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PANCHAYATH, KOZHIKODE. R1 BY ADV. SRI.P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN R2 TO R4 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. SANDESH RAJA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/10/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Mn T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR,J. ------------------------------------- W.P.(C)No.7672 Of 2010 ----------------------------------------------------- DATED THIS THE 4th DAY OF OCTOBER, 2010 JUDGMENT This Writ Petition was filed by the petitioner challenging Exhibit P10 and P11 orders by which the petitioner was transferred from Perumanna Grama Panchayat to Noolpuzha Grama Panchayat. The order of transfer shows that it was based on the request made by the Committee of the Panchayat. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the Panchayat. 3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has already joined the transferee station and the order of transfer has been implemented. But the grievance that remains to be considered is against the observations made by the Committee of the Panchayat in Exhibits P7 and P8 with regard to the conduct of the petitioner in respect of performance of her official duties. It is pointed out that the remarks made therein are unfounded and unless they are expunged, it may cause problems to the petitioner in future. Reliance is placed on a decision of this Court in Parameswaran W.P.(C)No.7672/10 -2- v. Director of Panchayat (2005(2) KLT 248). 4. The petitioner joined as Secretary of the Panchayat on 24.2.2009. Even prior to Exhibit P7, there was a notice issued as per Exhibit P1 to convene a special meeting relating to the transfer of the Secretary, which according to the petitioner was issued without giving a notice or opportunity of hearing. The said meeting was adjourned to 31.12.2009. Thereafter, Exhibit P2 notice was issued requesting the petitioner to submit her explanations. The petitioner filed a reply requesting to grant time as per Exhibit P4. It is averred in the Writ Petition that the meeting was conducted as scheduled on 31.12.2009 and a resolution was taken as per Exhibit P5 with the dissenting notes of certain members. This was challenged by the petitioner in W.P.(C)No.202/2010 wherein Exhibit P5 was quashed by this Court. It appears that the petitioner was issued a transfer order as per Exhibit P6 relying upon the resolution, which was also under challenge before this Court and the same was later withdrawn. 5. Later, Exhibit P7 resolution was circulated and W.P.(C)No.7672/10 -3- ultimately the same was passed by a motion, going by the minutes, Exhibit P8, by a majority. 6. Mainly it is contended that it was because of certain disputes with regard to the delimiation process the decision to transfer the petitioner was initiated. 7. Section 179(4) of the Panchayat Raj Act provides that Government or any authority authorised by Government may, at any time, transfer Secretary from a Panchayat and shall do so if such transfer is recommended by a resolution of the Panchayat passed at a special meeting called for the purpose and supported by a simple majority of votes of the allowed strength of the Panchayat. Going by the proviso, an opportunity shall be given to the Secretary of the Panchayat to make representation. Sub– Section (5) of Section 179 shows that the Panchayat shall be competent to impose minor penalties on its Secretary subject to such rules as may be made in that behalf. 8. It is pointed out that no proceedings by way of disciplinary action, even for imposing a minor penalty, has been initiated against the petitioner. It is therefore submitted that the W.P.(C)No.7672/10 -4- remarks have been made out of context and it was not required at all. 9. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the decision of this Court in Parameswaran v. Director of Panchayats wherein this Court in a similar case issued a direction to expunge the remarks under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. This Court found that there is no statutory remedy against the remarks made against the Secretary in the resolution of the Panchayat. 10. The remarks contained in Exhibits P7 and P8 are in general nature. Even though in the counter affidavit filed by the Panchayat explanations have been offered, really no specific allegations have been raised against the petitioner. The petitioner has already been transferred out of the Panchayat and she has joined the new station also. Therefore, the request to expunge the remark is only reasonable now, since unless they are removed, it may cause complications for her in future. In that view of the matter, as the transfer order has already been implemented, there will be a direction that any remark or W.P.(C)No.7672/10 -5- statement against the petitioner, in the resolution Exhibit P8 of the Panchayat will stand expunged. The Writ Petition is allowed to that extent. No costs. Sd/-(T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE) dsn True copy P.A.to Judge