RADHAKRISHNAN, J.

The question that has come up for consideration is whether President of a Gram Panchayat has got power to take disciplinary action against a non-gazetted Government servant allotted to the Panchayat. Learned Single Judge took the view that since first respondent-petitioner was not appointed by the President of the Gram Panchayat he has no power to take disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner.

Short facts which are necessary for the disposal of the case are as follows : Petitioner in the original petition was working as U.D. Clerk in the Elikulam Gram Panchayat. Petitioner accepted two applications, one from M. K. Gopalan and another from Sherly Emmanuel for regularisation of certain unauthorised construction and issued receipts for entertaining the applications. Panchayat Committee met on 1-7-2000 noticed that the said conduct of the petitioner was unauthorized and illegal. On the basis of the resolution of the Panchayat Committee, President issued an order dated 1-7-2000 placing the petitioner under suspension pending disciplinary proceedings. It is that order which was challenged in the writ petition.

Counsel for the petitioner Sri M. J. Thomas submitted that since President of the Panchayat is not the appointing authority, he has no power to suspend the petitioner. Appointing Authority as far as the petitioner is concerned, is the Director of Panchayats. Counsel pointed out that Rule 10 of the Kerala Civil Service (classification, control and Appeal) Rules mandates that government servant could be suspended by the appointing authority or by an authority to which he is subordinate. The provisions in Kerala Civil Service (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules were made applicable to the Panchayat Subordinate Service Rules, 1994. Since President of the Panchayat is not the authority empowered by the Government, counsel submitted, he has no power to suspend the petitioner. Counsel submitted that Ext. P5 order of suspension itself is arbitrary. Receipt of application for regularisation of construction is not an unauthorized act. He received the amount and gave receipts on the direction of the Secretary of the Panchayat and in any view of the matter suspension is erroneous, illegal and mala fide.Learned Government Pleader on the other hand submitted that President of the Panchayat has got the power to suspend any of the employees allotted to the Panchayat if he is not a gazetted officer. Reference was also made to Section 156(6)(b) of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994. Learned Government Pleader submitted that if the order is bad, unauthorized or mala fide, petitioner has to file objection against the suspension order and not to challenge the order under Article 226 of the Constitution of India before this Court. Counsel submitted that provisions of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act and rules would enable the petitioner to file objection against the suspension order.

Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 is enacted for securing a greater measure of participation of people in planned development and in local governmental affairs, by constituting village, block and district Panchayat. The Act is intended to invest such Panchayat with such powers and authority to enable them to function as institutions of self-government. Considerable amount of power has been conferred on the President or the Panchayat Committee in the matter of carrying out various welfare activities and to exercise various activities for planned development of the Panchayat as unit of self-government. Section 180(2) of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act states that the control of the officers of the Panchayat shall be with the Panchayat. Section 180(4) also enables the Government subject to the provisions of the Act to frame rules under the Kerala Public Services Act, 1968 to regulate the classification methods of recruitment, conditions of service, pay and allowances and discipline and conduct of officers and employees. It is in line with th