[Cites 14, Cited by 0]
Kerala High Court
The President vs State Of Kerala on 13 February, 2026
Author: N.Nagaresh
Bench: N.Nagaresh
2026:KER:13105
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH
FRIDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2026 / 24TH MAGHA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 38976 OF 2025
PETITIONER:
THE PRESIDENT
KIZHAKKAMBALAM GRAMA PANCHAYATH.
KIZHAKKAMBALAM POST, KIZHAKKAMBALAM,
REPRESENTED BY MINI V.C. (PRESIDENT)
ERNAKULAM, PINCODE, PIN - 683562
BY ADVS.
SHRI.BLAZE K.JOSE
SMT.GAYATHRI A.L.
SMT.AFRUS SHAHANA
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY,
LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT
GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, STATUE,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
2 DIRECTOR OF PANCHAYATH
DIRECTORATE OF LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT
SWARAJ BHAVAN, NANTHANCODE, KOWDIAR P.O.,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695003
3 JOINT DIRECTOR OF PANCHAYAT
DISTRICT PANCHAYAT OFFICE, CIVIL STATION,
THRIKKAKARA, KAKKANAD, PIN - 682030
4 DARSHINI C.M
ASSISTANT SECRETARY,
2026:KER:13105
W.P.(C) No.38976/2025
:2:
KIZHAKKAMBALAM GRAMA PANCHAYATH.
KIZHAKKAMBALAM POST, KIZHAKKAMBALAM,
ERNAKULAM,, PIN - 683562
BY ADVS.
SMT.SHAMEENA SALAHUDHEEN
SMT.JELEETTA GREGORY
SMT.ASTRID STEREENA MATHEW
SHRI.B.RAVISANKAR
SMT. K.R. DEEPA, SPL. GOVERNMENT PLEADER, LSGD
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY
HEARD ON 08.01.2026, THE COURT ON 13.02.2026 DELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING:
2026:KER:13105
W.P.(C) No.38976/2025
:3:
CR
N. NAGARESH, J.
`````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
W.P.(C) No.38976 of 2025
`````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
Dated this the 13th day of January, 2026
JUDGMENT
~~~~~~~~~
President of the Kizhakkambalam Grama
Panchayat is the petitioner. By Ext.P6 order, the Government
of Kerala freezed the decision taken by the Grama Panchayat
suspending the Assistant Secretary of the Panchayat from
service. The petitioner is challenging Ext.P6 decision of the
Government.
2. There were certain issues between the
Grama Panchayat Committee and a trade union relating to
renovation of existing bus stand at Kizhakkambalam junction.
2026:KER:13105
A Panchayat Committee meeting was held on 26.08.2025.
The 4th respondent, who is Assistant Secretary of the
Panchayat is not authorised to attend the Panchayat
Committee meetings, contends the petitioner. During the
meeting, the 4th respondent willfully obstructed the
proceedings and interfered in the Committee deliberations in
spite of repeated warnings from the petitioner. The 4th
respondent was directed to leave the meeting hall. However,
she continued the disruptive conduct.
3. The Secretary of the Panchayat and the 4th
respondent did not record the decisions taken by the
Panchayat Committee in spite of their duty to do so as per
Rule 26(4) of the Kerala Panchayat Raj (Procedure for
Panchayat Meeting) Rules, 1995. When the members of the
Panchayat Committee questioned the said conduct, the 4th
respondent invited outsiders into the Panchayat office and
interrupted peaceful conduct of the Panchayat meeting.
2026:KER:13105
4. Therefore, the petitioner issued Ext.P4 order
dated 27.08.2025 suspending the 4th respondent from service
in contemplation of disciplinary proceedings. The decision
was ratified by the Panchayat Committee meeting held on
01.09.2025. The 4th respondent approached the Government
challenging Ext.P4 suspension order. The Government,
without giving the petitioner any notice or opportunity of
hearing, issued Ext.P6 order dated 10.10.2025, suspending
the decision of the Panchayat Committee and referring the
matter to the Ombudsman for Local Self Government
Institutions for consideration under Section 191(2).
5. The petitioner states that the action of the
Government as per Ext.P6 is arbitrary and illegal. The
Government has no jurisdiction to act in that manner. The
order referring the matter to the Ombudsman is malafide. It is
aggrieved by Ext.P6 that the petitioners have approached this
Court.
2026:KER:13105
6. The counsel for the petitioner argued that
Section 156(6)(b) of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 read
with the Kerala Panchayat Raj (Control over Officers) Rules,
1997 empowers the President of a Grama Panchayat to place
a non-gazetted employee under suspension in contemplation
of disciplinary proceedings. This is a statutory power. Ext.P4
order suspending the 4th respondent is therefore lawful.
7. The petitioner argued that under Section 191
of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, the Government has only
supervisory or corrective power. Those powers do not extend
to individual disputes or decisions taken by the Panchayat
within the statutory frame work. The authority to initiate and
regulate disciplinary proceedings against non-gazetted
employees is with the Panchayat. Power to suspend an
employee is vested in the President as per Section 156(6)(b)
of the Act, subject to ratification by the Panchayat Committee.
The Director or Joint Director of the Panchayat is not vested
with any authority to independently conduct any enquiry or
2026:KER:13105
interfere in disciplinary matters.
8. The 4th respondent erred in approaching the
Government against Ext.P4 decision. As per Section 191(3),
if another remedy is available to the 4th respondent, the
Government shall not consider any petition from her. The 4th
respondent has effective alternate remedy against the
decision to suspend her, under the Administrative Tribunals
Act as also before the LSGD Tribunal. Ext.P6 order is
therefore highly illegal, arbitrary and ultravires. Ext.P6 is
liable to be quashed by this Court, urged the counsel for the
petitioner.
9. The petitioner relied on the judgment of this
Court in Director of Panchayats v. Krishnan [2001 (2) KLT
286] to contend that President of a Grama Panchayat has got
power to take disciplinary action against a non-gazetted
Government servant allotted to the Panchayat. Placing
reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in State
of Orissa v. Bimal Kumar Mohanty [(1994) 4 SCC 126], the
2026:KER:13105
counsel for the petitioner contended that suspension is not a
punishment and is only a step in aid to the ultimate result of
the investigation or enquiry. The authorities should keep in
mind public interest of the impact of the delinquents
continuance in office while facing departmental enquiry. The
respondents have not cared to consider relevant matters.
10. The petitioner also relied on the judgment of
this Court in Ayisha K.V. and others v. State of Kerala and
others [2015 (4) KHC 296] and stated that a comprehensive
reading of Section 191 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act would
show that the Government under the said provision exercises
its supervisory or corrective powers only and individual
disputes would not come within the ambit of Section 191.
11. The Special Government Pleader (LSGD)
resisted the writ petition filing counter affidavit on behalf of the
1st respondent. On behalf of the 1st respondent, it is
submitted that the Secretary of the Grama Panchayat
required the Joint Director to cancel Ext.P4 suspension order.
2026:KER:13105
The Joint Director enquired about the incident. The
preliminary investigation conducted by the Joint Director
could not confirm the authenticity of the allegations against
the 4th respondent. A Suspension Review Committee was
convened by the Government on 24.09.2025. The
Committee sought for a detailed investigation report.
12. The Principal Director submitted a report to
the Government. The Assistant Secretary is also Project
Implementing Officer and hence the 4th respondent can attend
Panchayat Committee meetings. The Assistant Secretary
has no role in preparing minutes of the meeting or uploading
the same in "SAKARMA" portal. Therefore, charge against
the 4th respondent is prima facie illegal.
13. The 1st respondent stated that there are no
lapses on the part of the 4th respondent-Assistant Secretary
or the Secretary of the Panchayat as alleged in the
suspension order. The President has suspended a person
who has a big responsibility in the Summary Revision of the
2026:KER:13105
voters list. The Government therefore suspended the
decision of the Panchayat and referred the matter to the
Ombudsman for Local Self Government Institutions. The
Government is justified in doing so, urged the Special
Government Pleader.
14. Counsel for the 4th respondent also resisted
the writ petition. On behalf of the 4th respondent, it is
submitted that the action of the petitioner in ordering
suspension is highly arbitrary and motivated. The petitioner
being an Assistant Secretary has no role in uploading a
decision/resolution of the Panchayat Committee. The 4th
respondent therefore cannot be suspended or proceeded
against for not recording the decision of the Panchayat
Committee.
15. The counsel for the 4th respondent further
urged that the Government, under Section 191, has powers to
suspend a decision taken by or resolution passed by a
Panchayat Committee provided the conditions mentioned in
2026:KER:13105
Section 191 are satisfied. The Government has found that
exercise of power by the Panchayat is illegal. Therefore, the
Government freezed the suspension order and referred the
matter to the Ombudsman. As the Government has taken
action strictly in accordance with the powers conferred by the
Panchayat Raj Act and the Rules made thereunder, no
interference is warranted from this Court, at the instance of
the writ petitioner, contended the Special Government
Pleader.
16. I have heard the learned counsel for the
petitioner, the learned Special Government Pleader (LSGD)
representing respondents 1 to 3 and the learned counsel
appearing for the 4th respondent.
17. The petitioner, who is President of the
Kizhakkambalam Grama Panchayat suspended the 4th
respondent, who is working as Assistant Secretary in the
Panchayat, as per Ext.P4 order dated 27.08.2025. The 4th
respondent was suspended in contemplation of disciplinary
2026:KER:13105
proceedings, as the 4th respondent had allegedly committed
misconduct. The Panchayat Committee meeting held on
01.09.2025 ratified the decision taken by the President.
18. The 4th respondent challenged Ext.P4
suspension order approaching the Government. The
Government suspended the decision of the Panchayat
Committee issuing Ext.P6 order dated 10.10.2025.
19. The legality of Ext.P6 order is questioned by
the petitioner. Ext.P6 order suspending the decision of the
Panchayat Committee and referring the matter to the
Ombudsman for Local Self Government Institutions for
consideration is issued presumably under Section 191 of the
Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994. Section 191 of the Kerala
Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 reads as follows:
191. Power of cancellation and suspension of
resolutions etc. -
(1) Government may either suo motu or, on a
reference by President, Secretary or a member, or
on a petition received from a citizen, cancel or very
a resolution passed or a decision taken by the
(a) is not legally passed or taken; or
2026:KER:13105
(b) is in excess of the powers conferred
by this Act or any other law or its abuse; or
(c) is likely to endanger human life, health
public safety, communal harmony or may lead to
riot or quarrel; or
(d) is in violation of the directions or
provisions of grant issued by Government in the
matter of implementing the plans, schemes or
programmes.
(2) Before cancelling or amending a
resolution or decision as per sub-section (1), the
Government may refer the matter for consideration
either of the ombudsman constituted under section
271G or the tribunal constituted under section 271S
and the ombudsman or the tribunal, as the case
may be; after giving the Panchayat an opportunity
of being head, send a report to the Government
with its conclusions and the Government may, on
its basis cancel, amend or confirm the resolution or
decision.
(3) If another remedy is available to the
petitioner through the tribunal under section 276,
the Government shall not consider any petition for
cancelling or amending any resolution or decision
of the Panchayat.
(4) If Government consider that a resolution
or decision of the Panchayat has to be cancelled or
amended as per sub-section (1) it may suspend
such resolution or decision temporarily and may
direct the panchayat to defer its implementation till
the final disposal after the completion of the
procedure under sub-section (2).
20. Section 191(1) is clear that the Government
may cancel or vary a resolution passed or decision taken by
2026:KER:13105
the Panchayat only on four eventualities. If the decision of
the Panchayat Committee is not legally passed or taken,
Government can cancel or vary a resolution. The
Government can also cancel or vary a resolution if it is in
excess of the powers conferred by the Kerala Panchayat Raj
Act, 1994 or any other law or its abuse.
21. The third eventuality to invoke Section 191 is
the likely danger to human life, health, public safety,
communal harmony or likelihood of riot or quarrel. The
Government can also invoke Section 191 if the
resolution/decision is in violation of the directions or
provisions of grant issued by the Government in the matter of
implementing the plans, schemes or programs.
22. Before cancelling or amending a resolution
or decision, as per sub-section (1), the Government may refer
the matter for consideration either of the Ombudsman or of
the Tribunal, in which case the Ombudsman or the Tribunal,
as the case may be, after giving the Panchayat an opportunity
2026:KER:13105
of being heard, send a report to the Government with its
conclusions. The Government, on the basis of the report,
may cancel, amend or confirm the resolution or decision.
23. The power of the Government to initiate
steps under Section 191 can be exercised only if one or more
situations indicated in sub-clauses (a) to (d) of sub-section (1)
of Section 191 exists. In the present case, the eventualities
indicated in sub-clauses (b), (c) and (d) do not exist. The
respondents would assert that the decision of the Panchayat
Committee is not legally passed or taken and therefore the
Government is justified in invoking the powers under Section
191(1)(a).
24. The question then is whether the decision of
the Panchayat Committee in confirming the suspension
imposed on the Assistant Secretary of the Panchayat is one
legally passed or taken. Ext.P6 order issued by the
Government would show that as soon a complaint is received
from the Assistant Secretary, the Government ordered a
2026:KER:13105
preliminary enquiry by the Joint Director's office and it is
found that the allegations levelled against the Assistant
Secretary are not established. After enquiry, it was reported
that a preliminary enquiry conducted does not show that the
allegations against the Assistant Secretary are correct.
Suspension has been ordered without seeking any
explanation from the Assistant Secretary. The Joint Director
stated that suspension of the Assistant Secretary will affect
the election process which is under way and therefore it is
necessary to cancel the suspension order.
25. Subsequently, on 24.09.2025, a suspension
review committee of the Local Self Government Institutions
considered the matter and noted that the Joint Director has
reported that the suspension was ordered without following
due procedure. Ext.P6 states that the Government has
examined the matter in detail and found that the Assistant
Secretary has not committed any mistake. It is observing so
that the Government suspended the decision of the
2026:KER:13105
Panchayat Committee and referred the matter to the
Ombudsman for Local Self Government Institutions.
26. Section 156 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act
provides for the functions of the Presidents and Vice
Presidents of Panchayats. As per Section 156(6)(b) of the
Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994, the President of a Grama
Panchayat has power to suspend from service any employee
or officer under the control of the Panchayat other than the
Secretary and 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 violating of rules or
standing orders.
27. In the case of the 4th respondent,
suspension is ordered in contemplation of disciplinary
proceedings as the 4th respondent is said to have committed
dereliction of duty and insubordination. Therefore, the
petitioner, who is the President of the Panchayat, indeed has
2026:KER:13105
power to suspend the Assistant Secretary. It is true that the
Government can cancel or vary a resolution/decision taken by
the Panchayat if it is not legally passed or taken. But, the
legality of a decision shall be examined on the basis of
competency of the Panchayat to take the decision. In
exercise of the powers under Section 191, the Government
cannot go into the merits of a decision and come to a
conclusion of illegality.
28. The suspension of the Assistant Secretary is
in contemplation of disciplinary proceedings alleging a
misconduct. The misconduct has to be proved on the basis
of a confronted enquiry by an Enquiry Officer as
contemplated under the law and the rules. Whether the
misconduct is committed or not can be proved only after a
domestic enquiry giving opportunity to the prosecution as well
as defence. When such domestic enquiry is contemplated,
the Government is not expected to make an advance parallel
enquiry and come to a conclusion regarding the guilt or
2026:KER:13105
otherwise of the employee. By Ext.P6, the Government has
done such an exercise and has come to a conclusion that
there are no prima facie materials. The action of the
Government therefore is a highhanded one, exceeding its
jurisdiction and usurping the powers of the Panchayat.
29. The President of the Panchayat is legally
empowered to suspend an employee who is not a Secretary
or Gazetted Officer when disciplinary proceedings are
contemplated. Therefore, it cannot be said that the
resolution/decision of the Panchayat approving the
suspension "is not legally passed or taken".
30. In Director of Panchayats (supra), this
Court has held that President of a Grama Panchayat has
power to take disciplinary action against a non-gazetted
government servant allotted to the Panchayat. In Ayisha K.V.
and others (supra), this Court held that a comprehensive
reading of Section 191 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act would
show that the Government under the said provision exercises
2026:KER:13105
its supervisory or corrective powers only and individual
disputes would not come within the ambit of Section 191.
31. In the facts and circumstances of the case,
Ext.P6 order passed by the 1st respondent is highly illegal and
arbitrary. Ext.P6 order dated 10.10.2025 of the 1st
respondent is therefore set aside. The Panchayat will be at
liberty to proceed against the 4th respondent in accordance
with law.
The writ petition is disposed of as above.
Sd/-
N. NAGARESH, JUDGE
aks/11.02.2026
2026:KER:13105
APPENDIX OF WP(C) NO. 38976 OF 2025
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DATED
23.08.2025 IN WP(C) 26228/2025 PASSED
BY THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA
Exhibit P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE SCREENSHOT OF THE
DRAFT OF THE DECISION REGISTER
UPLOADED IN THE SAKARMA PORTAL OF THE
PANCHAYATH COMMITTEE MEETING DATED
26.8.2025
Exhibit P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL DECISION
REGISTER UPLOADED IN THE SAKARMA
PORTAL OF THE PANCHAYATH COMMITTEE
MEETING DATED 26.8.2025
Exhibit P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. 1002/2025
DATED 27/08/2025 ISSUED BY THE
PETITIONER
Exhibit P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE DECISION NO.1 DATED
01.09.2025 TAKEN IN PANCHAYAT
COMMITTEE MEETING
Exhibit P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE G.O (ORDINARY)
NO.2472/2025/LSGD DATED 10.10.2025,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
Exhibit P7 A TRUE COPY OF THE DECISION OF THE
PANCHYATH COMMITTEE DATED 14.10.2025
RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS
Exhibit R1(a) True copy of the Letter No.4172593-
2025 dated 27/8/2025
Exhibit R1(b) True copy of the application dated
08.09.2025
Exhibit R1(c) True copy of the Letter
No.LSGD/PD/26803/2025-VIGC1 dated
02.10.2025
Exhibit R1(d) True copy of the G.O.(MS)No
218/2013/LSGD dated 10.06.2013
2026:KER:13105
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P8 A true copy of the show cause notice
dated on 18.10.2025 issued to the 4th
respondent/ assistant secretary
EXHIBIT P9 A true copy of the reply letter dated
1.11.2025 submitted by the 4th
respondent to the President/
Petitioner
RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS
Exhibit R4(a) A true copy of the Appeal preferred by
the 4th respondent dated 8.9.2025
before the 1st respondent
Exhibit R4 (c) A true copy of the Judgment of the
Hon'ble High Court of Kerala in
O.P.5675/2003 dated 31.5.2016
Exhibit R4(e) true copy of the Show cause notice
dated 18.10.2025
Exhibit R4(f) The Reply submitted for the Show cause
notice dated 1.11.2025
Exhibit R4(d) A true copy of the joining Report of
the 4th respondent
Exhibit R4(b) True copy of the Enquiry report
submitted by the Joint Director dated
1.9.2025
