Full Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN WEDNESDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF AUGUST 2023 / 1ST BHADRA, 1945 WP(C) NO. 22209 OF 2023 PETITIONER: ANILKUMAR.S AGED 54 YEARS S/O SUKUMARAN NAIR ,KODUVANTE KADAVIL , PERUMAN P.O, KOLLAM, PIN - 691601 BY ADV ARUN BABU RESPONDENTS: 1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY - LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT 4TH FLOOR , GOVERNMENT SECRETARIATE,. THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001 2 PANAYAM GRAMA PANCHAYAT PANAYAM , KOLLAM REPRESENED BY ITS SECRETARY, PIN - 691583 BY ADV K.V.ANIL KUMAR SMT.MABLE C.KURIAN[SR.GP] THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23.08.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ..2..
JUDGMENT
The petitioner impugns Ext.P2 decision taken by the 2 nd respondent, whereby, his engagement as a Pump Operator has been decided to be terminated. He asserts that Ext.P2 is illegal and unlawful because, as evident from Exts.P1 and P2, he was granted engagement as a Pump Operator since he had voluntarily surrendered one cent of his land for the purpose of starting a Pump House and that it was agreed by the Panchayat to disburse his salary from their Own Fund. He alleged that, it is without considering any of these aspects, that Ext.P2 has been issued; and therefore, prayed that it be set aside.
2. The learned Senior Government Pleader -
Smt.Mable C.Kurian, however, submitted that Panchayat appears to have issued Ext.P2 taking note of Audit Objection to the effect that petitioner’s salary cannot be paid by them, but only by the Kerala Water Authority, since the Pump House is operated and owned by them. She submitted that, therefore, the challenge of the petitioner against Ext.P2 is untenable.
3. Sri.K.V.Anil Kumar - learned Standing Counsel ..3..
appearing for the Panchayat, affirmed that the reasons for issuing Ext.P2 are evident therefrom and that his client had no other option because Audit Objectons have already been raised. He thus prayed that this writ petition be dismissed.
4. When I evaluate Ext.P2, it is luculent that it records
the decision taken by the Panchayat, but without hearing the petitioner. Of course, it refers to an Audit Report and appears that it is based on the same, that the decision recorded therein had been taken. This Court is also aware of the submission of the learned Senior Government Pleader, that the Panchayat cannot engage a person as a Pump Operator in their services because, there is no such post and that it is the Kerala Water Authority, which has to take such burden, even if it is not necessary.
5. But, it has to be borne in mind that petitioner was engaged by the Panchayat on the strength of a valid resolution -as evident from Ext.P1. Merely because an Audit Objection
has been raised, the Panchayat cannot disengage the petitioner, and that too without hearing him. This is more so because the petitioner asserts that he had surrendered his land only on the assurance that he will be engaged by the ..4.. Panchayat or the KWA, as the case may be. I am, therefore, of the firm view that the Panchayat ought to have heard the petitioner and to have adverted to Ext.P1, as also to all other relevant and germane aspects - including necessary inputs from the Kerala Water Authority, before an
order like Ext.P2 could have been issued.
In the afore circumstances, I allow this writ petition and
set aside Ext.P2, but not the decision taken by the Panchayat accompanying it; thus consequently directing its competent Authority to reconsider the claim of the petitioner for being continued to be engaged as a Pump Operator, after serving upon him a copy of the Audit Objection and adverting to all relevant aspects, including in the manner as said above; thus culminating in an appropriate order and necessary action thereon, as expeditiously as is possible, but not later than two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
Sd/- DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN, JUDGE ACR ..5.. APPENDIX OF WP(C) 22209/2023 PETITIONER EXHIBITS ExhibitP1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE DECISION TAKEN IN THE MEETING DATED 2.11.2018 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT ,BEARING NO 2/1 ExhibitP2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED RESPONDENT BEARING NO-A1-100/2023 ExhibitP3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C)9618/2008 DATED 27/05/2008 OF THIS HONBLE COURT