JUDGMENT
Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J.
1. Petitioner is the Secretary of Poruthassery Panchayat. Fourth respondent is the Poruthassery Panchayat Committee. Petitioner challenges Ext.P2 which is an order passed by the Director of Panchayats transferring him from the Poruthassery Grama Panchayat on the basis of Resolution No. 1 passed by it on 18.12.2004, under Section 179(4) of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’).
2. The contention of the petitioner is that though Section 179(4) stipulates that such a resolution can be passed only in a special meeting called for the purpose, that too, after affording him an opportunity to make a representation before the Panchayat or the President, the said statutory requirements under Section 179(4) have been flouted. In support of the said contention, reference is made to Rules 4 and 6 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj (Procedure for Panchayat Meeting) Rules, 1995 (for short ‘the Rules’). On the basis of Rule 4, it is contended that the special meeting envisaged under Section 179(4) of the Act is not one of those meetings as would fall under Rule 4(2) of the Rules. It is urged on behalf of the petitioner that a special meeting for the purpose contemplated in Section 179(4) is not a meeting which may be called as a special meeting convened by the President under Rule 4(2) of the Rules since the meetings contemplated under Rule 4(2) are meetings convened to take an urgent decision. The facts of the case in hand would show that one of the members of the Panchayat wanted a meeting to be convened for the purpose of moving a resolution seeking transfer of the petitioner, who is the Secretary, on ground of his alleged misbehaviour to some of the members, including the President. According to the petitioner, such a request is one that would fall under Rule 6 of the Rules which provided for not less than one third of the number of members of the Panchayat requiring to convene a meeting.
3. Contrasting Rules 4(2) and 6 of the Rules, in my considered view, Rule 6 of the Rules concerns those meetings which the President is obliged to convene on the request by not less than one third of the number of members of the Panchayat as notified by the Government. This means, under Rule 6 there is no discretion vested with the President in that regard. He has to convene a meeting. The situations that fall under Rule 4 are matters which require urgent decision by the Panchayat. The provision in Rule 6 does not exclude the right of a member to request for an urgent meeting of the Panchayat and if the Panchayat accepts such request, it will be within the authority of the President under Rule 4 to convene such a meeting. Such a meeting will also include one to consider a resolution contemplated in Section 179(4) of the Act. So much so, I am of the view that the convening of the meeting cannot be found fault with.
4. The next issue is whether there was any pre-decisional opportunity to represent, afforded to the petitioner in terms of the proviso to Section 179(4). The case of the petitioner in this regard is that what has been produced along with the counter-affidavit as the representation of the petitioner was merely a draft kept in the office and was not a genuine one and he had not signed the same. The learned counsel for the Panchayat refutes this stand and points out that what is produced along with the counter-affidavit contains the signature of the petitioner. The said signature is not disputed by the petitioner. I say so only to point out that the question whether what is produced along with the counter-affidavit is a representation made by the petitioner, is a disputed question of fact. His signature admittedly appears on that. He had been given an opportunity to make a representation. In this view of the matter, I am inclined to hold that he was given an opportunity to make a representation as contemplated by the proviso to Section 179(4) of the Act.
5. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner expresses anxiety as to the effect of the aforesaid resolution of the Panchayat containing certain remarks against the petitioner and it is pointed out that if the same is continued to remain, it may have an adverse impact on the career of the petitioner in the long run. Having considered the said issue. I am of the considered view that the reasons in the resolution need not continue to remain. This is because, if the actions of the petitioner amount to indiscipline, the Panchay at themselves had the authority to impose minor penalties as enjoined under Section 179(5) of the Act. In such event, the petitioner would have a right to file appeal under Section 179(6). If the Panchay at were of the view that the actions of the petitioner are such as should visit him with major penalties, they are entitled to take recourse to Section 179(10) and send a report to the Government in that regard. Having regard to the nature of the different provisions of Section 179, I am of the considered view that Section 179(4) is not a provision in the realm of discipline, for, it is merely one that admits to the Panchayat an authority to take a decision as to who shall not be its Secretary, having regard to the nature of the institution of the Panchayat, which is one of legal self governance. The power of the Panchayat to resolve under Section 179(4) is absolute and the Government are to act in terms thereof, as has been held by this Court in the case of the very same Panchayat in Poruthassery Grama Panchayat v. Director of Panchayats (2000 (2) KLT 776). That apart, the petitioner has no statutory remedy against the remarks made against him in the resolution of the Panchayat. In the absence of the necessity of such remarks to continue to sustain the request of the Panchayat for the transfer of the petitioner, I exercise authority under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and direct that any remark or statement in the aforesaid resolution of the Panchayat will not, in any manner, bind or affect the petitioner as far as his career is concerned and all such remarks are hereby expunged. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Panchayat has no objection to such a course being adopted. The Writ Petition is disposed of in the above terms, holding Ext.P2 as valid.