The learned counsel for the petitioner fairly submitted that the second prayer may be dismissed as not pressed. The said submission is placed on record. The said prayer dismissed as not pressed.

2. The suspended bill collector is before this Court for Writ of certiorari to quash the order dated 01.07.2016 made in No. GP/Bill Collector/2016-17 passed by the 3rd Respondent vide Annexure-C. The same is opposed to the principles of natural justice and in violation of Articles 14, 16(1), 21 and 311 of the Constitution of India and also mandamus to direct the Respondents to grant all monetary benefits i.e., salary and other benefits available to bill collector and permit him to discharge his job.

3. It is the case of the petitioner that on 26.04.2006, 3rd Respondent passed resolution appointed the petitioner as a bill collector and he was working from the date of appointment till private complaint lodged by one Mohammad Ahmed S/o Mohammad Khasim. On the basis of the said complaint 3rd Respondent Panchayat Development Officer proceeded to pass the impugned order suspending the petitioner from service. Therefore, the petitioner is before this Court.

4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties to the lis.

5. Smt Hema L. Kulkarni, learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that the impugned order passed by the 3rd Respondent Panchayat Development Officer suspending the petitioner as per Annexure-C is totally without jurisdiction and he is not the appointing authority of the petitioner. Therefore, the impugned order is passed by the 3rd Respondent is liable to be quashed. She further contended that the impugned order passed by the 3rd Respondent without notice and opportunity of being heard and without any basis. She further contended that even assuming that the 3rd Respondent passed suspension order as long as back on 01.07.2016 and the same is not yet revoked and suspension order cannot continue beyond three months in view of dictum of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ajay Kumar Choudhary V/s Union of India through its Secretary reported in (2015) 7 SCC 291.

6. Per contra Sri Ameet Kumar Deshapande, learned counsel for the Respondents sought to justify the impugned order and contended that the Pancahayat Development Officer exercising his power under the provisions of Section 113 of Karnataka Gram Swaraj and Panchayat Raj Act, 1993 has passed the impugned order on the basis of the direction issued by the Chief Executive Officer who is a higher authority. He further contended that mere suspension of the petitioner on some criminal case pending against the petitioner will not take away the rights of the petitioner. Therefore, this Court cannot interfere with the suspension order passed by the 3rd Respondent Therefore, he sought to dismiss the Writ Petition.

7. Having heard the learned counsel parties to the lis, it is an undisputed fact, that the petitioner was appointed as bill collector on 26.04.2006 by the Gram Panchayat and subsequently it was approved by the Zilla Panchayat. When the Gram Panchayat is appointing authority, any action can be taken only by the appointing authority and not by the 3rd Respondent Panchayat Development Officer. Sub-section 1 of Section 113 of the Karnataka Gram Swaraj and Panchayat Raj Act, 1993 (herein after referred as Act) makes it clear that the Gram Panchayat is appointing authority. Sub-Section 2 of Section 113 of the Act enable the Panchayat Development Officer may by order fine or withhold increment of any employees appointed by the Gram Panchayat. Sub-section 3 of Section 113 of the Act, Gram Panchayat may impose major penality, such as reduce in rank, remove or dismiss any employee appointed by it. Against the said order under sections 2 and 3 of Section 113 an appeal lies to the appellate authority under section 4 of Section 113 of the Act. In view of the said provisions, it is clear that the power to suspend is not an implied term in an ordinary contract between m