JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Sri M. Chinnapa Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Badra Naga Seshayya, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services-III and Sri G. Srinivasulu Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for Zilla Praja Parishad, Mandal Praja Parishad (in short ZPP, MPP) and Government Pleader for Services appearing for the 5th respondent.

2. This petition was filed for the following relief:

“For the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit, it is hereby prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue a Writ, Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 3rd respondent in issuing proceedings No.674/2017 G4, dated 03.03.2017 as illegal, arbitrary, unjust and colourable exercise of powers and in violation of the principles of natural justice and violative of Articles 14 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and Andhra Pradesh Panchayat Raj Subordinate Services Rules and consequently direct the respondents to treat the period of illegal suspension as on duty, duly paying all consequential benefits which are eligible by the petitioner and pass such other orders as deems fit just and proper in the circumstances of the case.”

3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was appointed as a Junior Assistant on 01.07.1986 in Zone-III in Guntur District. His services were regularized and he was promoted to the post of Panchayat Secretary Grade-II from the feeder category of Panchayat Secretary Grade-III on 11.08.2015 and was continuing on such.

4. The petitioner was placed under suspension in contemplation of the disciplinary proceedings vide proceedings Roc.No.674/2017 G4, dated 03.03.2017 by the District Collector, Guntur.

5. However, later on the District Collector, Guntur vide proceedings Roc.No.674/2017/G4, dated 22.01.2021 reinstated the petitioner in service.

6. Sri M.Chinappa Reddy submits that the order of suspension, dated 03.03.2017 passed by the District Collector is without jurisdiction, as the Collector is not the competent authority to suspend but it is the Commissioner, being the disciplinary authority of the petitioner is the competent authority. He further submits that any disciplinary proceeding was not initiated against the petitioner, although the order of suspension was passed in contemplation of the disciplinary proceeding. Any charge memo was never served. Therefore, the petitioner’s period of suspension with effect from 03.03.2017 upto 22.01.2021 is liable to be treated as on duty however, any decision in that respect has not been taken by the competent authority.

7. Sri Badra Naga Seshayya, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services-III submits that the petitioner holds the post of Executive Officer under the Gram Panchayat, Ramachandrapuram. Placing reliance on Section 2 (12) of the Andhra Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 as amended vide Section 12 of the Andhra Pradesh Panchayat Raj (Amendment) Act 2002, and Rule 8 read with Rule 13 (b) of the Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (C.C.A) Rules, 1991, he submits that the District Collector is the competent authority to pass the order of suspension in the case of the petitioner.

8. Learned Assistant Government Pleader fairly submits that there is nothing on record to show service of any charge memo to show initiation of the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner and that the impugned order does not shows that any decision with respect to the period of suspension, to be treated on duty or otherwise, has been taken by the competent authority.

9. I have considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsels for the parties and perused the material on record.

10. The points for consideration are (1) whether the order of suspension passed by the District Collector is without jurisdiction? and (2) whether the petitioner is entitled for all the benefits for the pe