SEC 9 TZP 2001-02 dated 26-10-2002
The petitioner, who is the Chief Executive Officer of ZP Udupi has filed the Petition under Section 168(2) of the KPR Act praying for disqualifying the Respondent on the ground that the Respondent remained absent without obtaining prior permission of the Udupi Zilla Panchayat to absent himself for four consecutive meetings held on 30/1/2001,28/2/2001,10/4/2001 and 29/5/2001.
Respondent contended that on 5/4/2001 he wrote to the Adhyaksha of Zilla Panchayat that owing to his ill-health he was under bed rest for three months from 1/3/2001 and would not attend the meetings during that period, and that on 2/7/2001 the Zilla Panchayat granted him leave from 1/3/2001 to 12/6/2001.
Admittedly the Respondent remained absent for the meetings held on 30/1/2001 and 28/2/2001 without grant of leave as contemplated under Section 168 of the KPR Act. As regards his absence for the meetings on 10/4/2001 and 29/5/2001,the Respondent had made application on 5/4/2001 seeking leave of absence on medical grounds.
The point to be noted here is that leave has to be sanctioned by the Panchayat. In this case, Adhyaksha sanctioned leave to the Respondent on 5/4/2001 and Panchayat at its meeting held on 2/7/2001 ratified the said act of Adyaksha. Thus leave of absence granted by Adhyaksha gains tinge of validity in law .
Provision to Section 168(d) of the Act provides for deemed sanction of leave of absence if the member is not informed of sanction or otherwise within a period of one month from the date of application. There is a gap of three months from date of application to date of sanction.
Held absence of Respondent for the first two meetings are
without permission and next two meeting are with permission. There is
no consecutive absence for four meetings. Hence by order dated 26/10/2002
dismissed the petition.