ORDER

05.05.2009 — Heard Mr. P.K. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Patnaik, learned counsel for the State.

The petitioner is a VLW posted under the Odapada Block and is working as the Executive Officer of Bangurusingh Grama Pan¬chayat pursuant to the order of the Block Development Officer annexed as Annexure-4 to the additional affidavit filed by the petitioner today in Court. While working as such, the letter under Annexure-1 was issued by the Collector, Dhenkanal to the following effect :-

“DISTRICT OFFICE; DHENKANAL.

ORDER NO.72/G.P. DT.21.1.09.

Sri Nabakishore Mishra, VLW of Odapada Block is hereby placed under suspension with immediate effect pending drawal of charges. It is further ordered that during the period of suspension, Sri Mishra is allowed to draw the subsistence allow¬ance as admissible as per Rule 90(2) of Orissa Service Code for a period of six months with effect from the date of his suspension or his actual period of suspension which ever is less.

During the period of suspension, the headquarters of Sri Mishra, VLW is fixed at Odapada Block. Sri Mishra shall not leave the headquarters without obtaining the prior permission of B.D.O., Odapada.

Sd/- Illegible, 20.1.09.

Collector, Dhenkanal”

The Petitioner being aggrieved has approached this Court in the present writ petition for appropriate relief.

Mr. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners places reli¬ance on the decision in the case of Fakirmohan Das and others v. Government of Orissa and others, etc. etc. 2008 (II) OLR 530 in support of his contention that the letter under Annexure-1 issued by the Collector is without jurisdiction. In the said decision, a batch of writ petitions was disposed of by a Division Bench of this Court, wherein the vires of the amended Section 122 of the Orissa Grama Panchayat Act, 1964 was challenged. The Division Bench after analyzing the facts of the case and the law on the point, on elaborately discussing the same, held in paragraphs-17, 18 and 19 of the said judgment as follows :-

“17. When the matter stands thus, the criticism by the petitioners on Sub-section (3) of Section 122 still remains to be considered. Answer of the State Government on the aforesaid point is flimsy. According to the counter affidavit of the opposite parties - State, the workload in the panchayats has increased and still like to increase many fold in view of different developmen¬tal schemes introduced by both the Central Government and the State Government and huge flow of money for developmental and therefore, additional staffs are necessary to cope with that pressure of work and to properly monitor and utilize of the funds allocated and allotted. This part of the logic of the State also run consistent with the provision of law and the competency of the State to create post and to assign/entrust work on the new employees of the Panchayats. But the further logic of the State that the V.A.Ws. and V.L.Ws. remaining in the duel charge are to remain under the specific control and supervision of Director, Collectors and District Panchayat Officers, as stated above is unacceptable, inasmuch as, if the Executive Officers of the Panchayats, who have been bestowed with all the responsibilities relating to maintenance of records, registers and cash be kept under the control of the bureaucrats relating to their service conditions and function, then the Panchayats cannot function within independence and that is how that would interfere with the constitutional mandate of self-government. For the reasons assigned by the State, if V.A.Ws and V.L.Ws are to function as Executive Officers, then their duties and responsibilities with respect to the duties in the Panchayat and their services should be within the control of the Grama Panchayats, or else the Grama Panchayats may suffer for any indiscipline or refusal or negli¬gence to carry out the lawful order of the Sarpanch or Panchayat, as the case may be. Apart from that ther