The Collector lacks authority to suspend a Panchayat Executive Officer, highlighting the independence of Gram Panchayats and mandating adherence to principles of natural justice in disciplinary actions.

JUDGMENT :

Dr. S.K. Panigrahi, J.

1. The Petitioner, in this Writ Petition, has challenged the order of suspension dated 21.12.2019 issued by the Collector, Khurda, which is not only without authority but also in contrary to the service condition of the petitioner and in gross violation to the principles of natural justice.

I. FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE

2. The concise yet comprehensive factual record of the case, pertaining to the matter at hand, is presented succinctly as follows:

(i) The petitioner was appointed as Panchayat Secretary and subsequently in the year 2004 appointed as VLW (Village level Workers) and working as such and in view of the amendment of the ORISSA GRAM PANCHAYAT ACT , 1964 and in view of the Sec. 122 of the ORISSA GRAM PANCHAYAT ACT , 1964 he is working as Panchayat Executive Officer, under Kantabada and Malipada Gram Panchayat under Bhubaneswar Block, Dist-Khurda and is working under the control and supervision of the Gram Panchayat in view of the Article 243(g) of the Constitution of India.

(ii) Prior to the present assignment, the petitioner was discharging his duties under the control of Gram Panchayats namely Podadiha Gram Panchayat under the Begunia Block from December 2015 to 30.06.2017. It is also pertinent to mention here that since 04.07.2017 the petitioner has Joined in the present place of posting and working as Panchayat Executive Officer, under Kantabada and Malipada Gram Panchayat under Bhubaneswar Block, Dist-Khurda and is discharging his duties very sincerely and honestly with the utmost satisfaction of the Gram Panchayat.

(iii) The cause of action arose to approach before this Court when the petitioner saw the news items published in the print media and electronics media regarding suspension of the present petitioner regarding financial irregularity in podiha Gram panchyat and accordingly the petitioner ascertained that he has been put under suspension by order dated 21.12.2019.

(iv) As it appears from the order of suspension the collector Khordha in exercise of his power under Rule 15 of the OCS(CCA) Rules, 1962 placed the petitioner under suspension directing his headquarters at Project Director, DRDA Khordha and also accorded sanction under Rule 90 of the OCS(CCA) Rules, 1962, which is absolute without authority and settled principles of Law. Hence, the present Writ Petition.

(v) On the bare perusal of the order of suspension it is very clear that the order has been issued by the Collector, Khordha who is without authority. The law is well settled in view of the Article 243 (g) of the Constitution of India, the employees of the Gram Panchayat is under the control and supervision of the Gram Panchayat and there exists a master-servant relationship.

(vi) It appears from the language of the order of suspension and amply reflects that while the petitioner was working as Panchayat Executive office i.e. PEO, a disciplinary proceeding was initiated by the Collector which is contrary to the law.

(vii) In the present context, the petitioner is yet to know what are the allegations against him and at any point of time the petitioner has been served with the contents of the allegations or the contents of the inquiry report so also at no point of time the petitioner has been called for rebuttal the allegations at this juncture issuance of order of suspension gives very bad taste in the eye of Law and interference of this court is highly warranted.

II. COURT’S REASONING AND ANALYSIS

3. The main ground of challenge and point of law involved in the present case is that the entire allegation has been made against the petitioner while he was working as Panchayat Executive officer i.e. PEO under Signature Not Verified the Gram Panchayat. If the earlier full Bench decision of this Court is relied, it h