The Hindu : Front Page : "Panchayat presidents can suspend subordinates"

Online edition of India's National Newspaper
Thursday, Aug 10, 2006

Front Page

Front Page

"Panchayat presidents can suspend subordinates"

Staff Reporter

Writ jurisdiction cannot be invoked: Bench

MADURAI: When a competent authority enjoyed the discretion to suspend an employee or not, pending investigation or trial of a criminal case against the latter, writ jurisdiction cannot be invoked to examine whether there are sufficient reasons for taking the decision, the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court has ruled.

Dismissing a writ petition moved by a suspended clerk of Kalloorani panchayat in Tirunelveli district, Justice N. Paul Vasanthakumar said, "No one can compel the authority to exercise the discretionary power in a particular manner unless it is established that the power exercised is arbitrary and discriminatory."

Rule 17(e)(1) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules makes it clear that a Government servant, charged with a criminal offence may be suspended if such suspension was necessary in public interest.

The Judge also refused to accept the contention of the petitioner, S. Jeyasingh Rajan, that the rights conferred on him under Article 14 (equality before law) and Article 21 (protection of life and personal liberty) of the Constitution of India were affected due to the suspension order. Suspension was only a temporary cessation of work and not a final punishment, he said and added that if the criminal case registered against the petitioner was found to be false, naturally he would get the suspension revoked and the period of suspension regulated.

On the other contention raised by the petitioner that the panchayat president had no jurisdiction to suspend an employee, the Judge said the argument could not be sustained especially in view of the fact that the president was the appointing authority in respect of a clerk in the panchayat.

He pointed out that the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, 1994 was amended in 1999 and the words, `executive authority' were substituted for `president.' As per Section 106 of the Act, the executive authority, the commissioner or the secretary, was empowered to punish officers and servants by imposing fine, withholding increments, suspending, etc.

"In view of the conferment of control... the order passed by the respondent (president) suspending the petitioner in this case is well within his statutory powers and the contention that the respondent has no jurisdiction to pass the impugned order is held against the petitioner," the Judge said.

Printer friendly page
Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Front Page