Panchayat president legally empowered to suspend any employee: Kerala HC

Kochi: High court has held that a panchayat president is legally empowered to suspend any employee, other than the secretary of the panchayat or a gazetted officer, when disciplinary proceedings are contemplated.The court also ruled that the power of the govt under Section 191 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act to cancel a suspension or resolution passed by the panchayat committee is supervisory and corrective in nature and can be invoked only when the statutory conditions specified therein are satisfied, and not to adjudicate individual disputes.Justice N Nagaresh issued the ruling while setting aside the state govt's order that froze the suspension of the assistant secretary of the Kizhakkambalam panchayat by the panchayat president. HC was considering a petition filed by the panchayat president challenging the govt's order freezing the suspension, which had been ratified by the panchayat committee.The petitioner alleged that during a meeting of the panchayat committee held on Aug 26, 2025, the assistant secretary, who was not authorised to attend the meeting, wilfully obstructed the proceedings and interfered in the committee's deliberations despite repeated warnings. Accordingly, on Aug 27, she was suspended from service, and the suspension order was ratified by the panchayat committee. The petitioner further claimed that, without giving any notice or opportunity of hearing, the govt froze the order and referred the matter to the Ombudsman for LSGIs, prompting him to approach HC.However, the state govt argued that the action against the assistant secretary was prima facie illegal and, therefore, it froze the suspension under Section 191 of the Act. It was also stated that, as the assistant secretary is the project implementing officer, she is entitled to attend the panchayat committee meeting. Further, the govt asserted that the order freezing the suspension was issued after perusing the preliminary inquiry report of the LSGD joint director and the report of the suspension review committee.HC observed that the suspension was in contemplation of disciplinary proceedings alleging misconduct, which must be proved through a formal inquiry conducted by an inquiry officer as contemplated under the law and rules. Whether the misconduct was committed can be determined only after a domestic inquiry, providing an opportunity to both the prosecution and the defence. When such a domestic inquiry is contemplated, the govt is not expected to conduct a parallel inquiry in advance and arrive at a conclusion. Accordingly, HC held that the state govt's action was high-handed, exceeded its jurisdiction, and amounted to usurping the powers of the panchayat, and it therefore set aside the impugned order.