The appointing authority can serve as the disciplinary authority under the amended Grama Panchayat Act, as per the provisions of the Act and OCS Rules.

JUDGMENT :

Biraja Prasanna Satapathy, J.

1. Since all these Writ Petitions involve a common issue, all the matters were heard analogously and disposed of by the present common order.

2. Heard Mr. S.K. Dalai, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. P.K. Panda, learned Addl. Standing Counsel for the State.

3. All these Writ Petitions have been filed by the petitioner who happens to be Panchayat Executive Officer of Sikua Grama Panchayat under Bhawanipatna Block in the district of Kalahandi, inter alia challenging the orders, so passed by Opp. Party No.2, on the ground that Opp. Party No.2 is not competent to pass such orders.

4. It is the case of the petitioner that petitioner while continuing as Grama Panchayat Secretary of Sikua Grama Panchayat, he was appointed as VLW vide order issued by the Collector, Kalahandi-Opp. Party No.2 in the year 2011 on promotion. Subsequently, post of VLW was re-designated as Panchayat Executive Officer and petitioner accordingly was allowed to continue as Panchayat Executive Officer of the Grama Panchayat.

4.1. It is contended that while continuing as PEO of the Grama Panchayat, petitioner initially vide order dated 24.09.2016, was placed under suspension with effect from the said date of Opp. Party No.2. Challenging such order of suspension, petitioner approached this Court by filing W.P. (C) No.17495 of 2016. It is contended that this Court while issuing notice of the matter vide order dated 07.10.2016, passed an interim order, inter alia directing that no coercive action be taken against the petitioner following the impugned order of suspension.

4.2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that such an order of suspension passed at the instance of Opp. Party No.2 by the District Panchayat Officer, Kalahandi, was challenged inter alia on the ground that Opp. Party No.2 being not the disciplinary authority, he is not competent to pass an order of suspension so passed by him vide order dated 24.09.2016. Accordingly, this Court while issuing notice of the matter passed an interim order on 07.10.2016.

4.3. It is contended that on the face of such order passed by this Court on 07.10.2016, in the proceeding initiated against the petitioner by Opp. Party No.2 vide Memorandum No.1308 dated 22.03.2017, Opp. Party No.2, while disposing the proceeding, imposed various punishments on the petitioner vide order dated 01.12.2022. Accordingly, such an order of punishment was assailed by the petitioner before this Court by filing W.P. (C) No.35134 of 2022. It is contended that this Court vide order dated 23.12.2022, while issuing notice of the matter, passed an interim order to the effect that order dated 01.12.2022 shall not be given effect to till the next date.

4.4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that on the face of the interim order passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No.17495 of 2016 on 07.10.2016, not only the proceeding vide Memorandum No.1308 dated 22.03.2017 was initiated but also order of punishment was passed vide order dated 01.12.2022, which is the subject matter of challenge in W.P.(C) No.35134 of 2022. Not only that on the face of such interim order passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No.17495 of 2016 on 07.10.2016, another proceeding was also initiated against the petitioner by Opp. Party No.2 vide Memorandum No.804 dated 01.08.2018 under Annexure-3.

4.5. It is contended that such a proceeding with the charges indicated therein, since was initiated on the face of a Vigilance Proceeding initiated against the petitioner on self-same charges in Koraput Vigilance P.S. Case No.26 dated 03.07.2017 under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(c)(d) of the P.C. Act, 1988 and Section 468/471/406/420/120-B of the IPC, petitioner on receipt of the Memorandum No.804 dated 01.08.2018 under Annexure-3, moved an applicati