IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI FRIDAY, THE 25TH JULY 2008 / 3RD SRAVANA 1930 WP(C).No. 20949 of 2008(R) PETITIONER: --------------------- ARAVINDAKSHAN.P, U.D.CLERK, PALLIKKUNNU GRAMA PANCHAYATH, PALLIKUNNU, KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.M.SASINDRAN SRI.TOJAN J. VATHIKULAM RESPONDENTS: ------------------------- 1. THE PRESIDENT, PALLIKUNU GRAMA PANCHAYATH, PALLIKUNNU, KANNUR DISTRICT. 2. PALLIKUNNU GRAMA PANCHAYATH, PALLIKUNNU, KANNUR DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 3. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PANCHAYATHS, KANNUR. 4. THE DIRECTOR OF PANCHAYATHS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 5. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANATHAPURAM. R1 & R2 BY ADV. SRI.V.R.KESAVA KAIMAL R3 TO R5 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.NANDAKUMAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: V.GIRI, J. ------------------------- W.P.(C).No.20949 of 2008 R ------------------------- Dated this the 25nd day of July, 2008. JUDGMENT The petitioner is an Upper Division Clerk in the Pallikkunnu Grama Panchayat. While so, under Ext.P1, 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.P1 order is dated 25.3.2008. Ext.P1 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.P1 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.P1 order was placed by the President of the Panchayat before the Panchayat Committee in the next meeting held after Ext.P1 viz., 10.6.2008. It is also on record that the suspension of the petitioner was W.P.(C).NO.20949 of 2008 :: 2 :: 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.P1 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 W.P.(C).NO.20949 of 2008 :: 3 :: validity of the order of suspension and the requirement of approval by the Panchayat Committee as such. 4. Section 156 of the Act deals with the powers of the President and Vice President. Section 156(6)(b) of the said Act reads as follows: “(6) The president of the Panchayat shall also have the following powers, namely:-- (b) Suspend from service, if necessary, any employee or officer under the control of the Panchayat other than the Secretary and the Government Officers in the Gazetted rank who are transferred to the service of the Panchayat, when disciplinary proceedings are to be taken against them for dereliction of duty or insubordination or for violation of rules or Standing Orders: Provided that the President shall place the order of suspension in the next meeting of the Panchayat and get it ratified; otherwise the said order will become invalid” 5. It is apposite that the Subordinate Rules are relevant for the purpose of Section 156 W.P.(C).NO.20949 of 2008 :: 4 :: of the Act are also referred to. Rule 8 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj (Control Over Officers) Rule 1997 reads as follows: “8. (1) If the president is prima facie satisfied that an employee of the Panchayat referred to in Section 180, a Government Officer or employee of subordinate service whose service has been lent to the Panchayat, has committed an offence of serious nature, includes misconduct or deserves major penalty, and allowing him to continue in service is against public interest and will obstruct the enquiry being conducted or intending to conduct against him, he may suspend such employee from service subject to detailed enquiry and disciplinary proceeding.” 6. Since the provisions of the Act authorises the President of the Panchayat to suspend an employee of the Panchayat, under the control of the Panchayat, when disciplinary proceedings are to be taken against him for dereliction of duty or insubordination or violation of the Rules or Standing Orders, it would be appropriate that the requirements of the W.P.(C).NO.20949 of 2008 :: 5 :: statute are controlled by the provisions of the plenary statute. Assuming that there is any ambiguity, on a reading of the Rules, it is trite that the Rule will have to be understood in consonance with the provisions of the plenary statute. Therefore, the requirements of the law would be better understood by the construction of the provisions of Section 156(6) of the Act as such. 7. I heard learned counsel for the petitioner Sri.M.Sasindran, learned Senior Government Pleader Mr.Nandakumar and Sri.V.R.K.Kaimal learned counsel for the Panchayat. 8. No doubt, the President of the Panchayat is empowered to suspend from service, if necessary, any employee or officer of the panchayat, other than the Secretary and Government Officers in the Gazetted rank. Mr.Sasindran, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the power under Section 156 of the Act may be understood in the context of Rule 8(1) of the Rules also, which contemplates that the President of a Panchayat, can suspend an employee only when W.P.(C).NO.20949 of 2008 :: 6 :: the allegations against the employee is such that it deserves a major penalty or there is violation of the statute in force and to allow him to continue in service is against public interest and will also obstruct the enquiry being conducted or intended to be conducted against him. 9. As mentioned above, I only propose to consider the position of the law as regards the requirement of an order of suspension issued by the President of a Panchayat being ratified by the Panchayat Committee. Therefore, I do not propose to go into the question as to whether the President of the Panchayat, in the present case, had acted correctly or within the parameters of law in actually issuing the order of suspension. In the circumstances, I do not think it is necessary to embark upon such enquiry as such. 10. Coming back to the issue as to the power of the President of the Panchayat to suspend an employee, what will have to be noted is that the proviso to Rule 156(6)(b) of the Act obliges the President to place order of suspension before the next meeting of the Panchayat Committee and get it ratified. Assuming that there was any W.P.(C).NO.20949 of 2008 :: 7 :: ambiguity in the construction of the first part of the proviso, in my view, no such ambiguity would be felt if the proviso was read as a whole, which makes it clear that unless the first part of the proviso is complied with, the order itself becomes invalid. In other words, the President of the Panchayat is empowered to place an employee under suspension, but after he passes the order of suspension, he is obliged to place the order of suspension in the next meeting of the Panchayat and thereafter the Panchayat Committee has to consider the suspension order and ratify the same. If the Committee does not ratify the order of suspension, it becomes invalid. This is the statutory consequence. It is not possible of any dilution or variation by the authorities as such. 11. Sri.V.R.K.Kaimal, learned counsel for the Panchayat submits that the proviso to Section 156(6)(b) does not really lends itself to the interpretation whereby. The ratification of the order of suspension issued by the Panchayat President will have to come about in the next meeting of the panchayat after the order of suspension, wherein the order of suspension is W.P.(C).NO.20949 of 2008 :: 8 :: placed by the President for ratification. He points out that the order of suspension Ext.P1 was placed before the next meeting of the panchayat after the order of suspension i.e. on 10.6.2008 and therein the obligation of the President, in terms of the statute, stands discharged. The committee did ratify the order of suspension in the meeting held on 24.6.2008 and therefore the requirement of the statute should be deemed to be fulfilled even in that regard. Sri.Kaimal submits that the statute cannot be read in such a way that the ratification of the order of suspension by the Panchayat Committee must take place in the first meeting of the Panchayat where the order of suspension is placed in terms of the proviso to Section 156(6)(b) of the Act. 12. I am afraid, I am unable to accept this submission. In my view, what is contemplated by the proviso to Section 156(6)(b) is not only the obligation of the Panchayat President to place the order of suspension, but also a ratification by the Panchayat Committee. The act of ratification by the Panchayat Committee is to be read in conjunction with the words which W.P.(C).NO.20949 of 2008 :: 9 :: immediately precedes the same viz., “in the next meeting of the panchayat”. In my view, if the act of ratification is not necessarily associated with the words 'in the next meeting of the panchayat', then it would be difficult to really impute meaning into the second part of the proviso to Section 156(6)(b) viz., the consequence provided in the statute that the order itself becomes invalid. Thus, once the President issues the order of suspension, it has to be placed in the next meeting of the Panchayat. The statute also contemplates a situation where the order of suspension will thereafter be valid and operative only on it being ratified by the Panchayat Committee itself as if the committee then decides to suspend the employee. If the Committee fails to ratify the same, which is a positive act as such, then the order of suspension issued by the President abates at that point of time. 13. Even if a reading of the English version of the statute, might lend itself to any conflicting interpretations as such, useful reference could be made to Malayalam version of the statute, which was what was passed by the W.P.(C).NO.20949 of 2008 :: 10 :: legislature as such. The same is extracted hereunder: 14. A reading of the above, will make it clear that what the legislature intended, beyond any doubt whatsoever is that, the order of suspension issued by the President of the Panchayat will not only have to be placed immediately, in the next meeting of the Panchayat, but will also have to be ratified by the Panchayat Committee in the same meeting, failing which the order becomes invalid as such. 15. In this view of the matter, it has to be held that Ext.P1 order of suspension seen to W.P.(C).NO.20949 of 2008 :: 11 :: have held on 10.6.2008, on which day the committee held its meeting, after the order of suspension and failed to ratify the order of suspension or the act of suspension, as the case may be. If that be so, the statute itself provides for the consequence arising therefrom. The order of suspension becomes invalid and in terms of Rule 8 (3). The employee shall immediately be reinstated in service and the period of suspension is liable to be treated as duty. 16. In the result, the writ petition is allowed. It is held that Ext.P1 order of suspension stood cancelled on 10.06.2008 and the petitioner became eligible to be reinstated in service with effect from the said date. The period when he was kept out of service is eligible to be treated as duty in terms of Rule 8(3) of the Rules. The President of the Panchayat is a responsible functionary. I have no doubt in my mind that he will not stand in the way of the petitioner rejoining duty, which the petitioner is entitled to. I do not think it necessary to pass an order separately giving a direction to the President of the Panchayat in this regard. W.P.(C).NO.20949 of 2008 :: 12 :: 17. The petitioner has also challenged the resolution of the panchayat taken on 24.6.2008. In view of the discussion and the declaration made above, it is not necessary to consider the said prayer as such. The petitioner shall produce a copy of this judgment, along with a copy of the writ petition, before the 1st respondent, for compliance. Sd/- (V.GIRI) JUDGE sk/ //true copy// P.S. To Judge