The President of a Grama Panchayat possesses the authority to suspend non-gazetted employees for disciplinary proceedings, and government intervention in such matters is limited by statutory provisions.

JUDGMENT :

N.NAGARESH, J.

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. A Panchayat Committee meeting was held on 26.08.2025. The 4^th respondent, who is Assistant Secretary of the Panchayat is not authorised to attend the Panchayat Committee meetings, contends the petitioner. During the meeting, the 4^th respondent willfully obstructed the proceedings and interfered in the Committee deliberations in spite of repeated warnings from the petitioner. The 4^th respondent was directed to leave the meeting hall. However, she continued the disruptive conduct.

3. The Secretary of the Panchayat and the 4^th 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 4^th respondent invited outsiders into the Panchayat office and interrupted peaceful conduct of the Panchayat meeting.

4. Therefore, the petitioner issued Ext.P4 order dated 27.08.2025 suspending the 4^th respondent from service in contemplation of disciplinary proceedings. The decision was ratified by the Panchayat Committee meeting held on 01.09.2025. The 4^th 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.

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 4^th 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 interfere in disciplinary matters.

8. The 4^th respondent erred in approaching the Government against Ext.P4 decision. As per Section 191 (3), if another remedy is ava