( 1. ) THE petitioner who is a Panchayat Karmi challenges the order Annexure P-5, dated 24-1-2001 passed by the respondent No. 3 by which the powers of Secretary have been withdrawn from the petitioner.

( 2. ) IN pursuance to the provisions of Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993 scheme known as Panchayat Karmi Yojana for regulating Appointment of Panchayat Karmi was issued by the State Govt. vide Annexure P-1.

Accordingly, the petitioner was appointed as Panchayat Karmi in Gram Panchayat, Gwalior vide order Annexure P-2. Subsequently in exercise of the powers contained in Section 69 (1) of the Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993 the Collector, Shivpuri issued orders on 6-11-95 declaring the petitioner to be a Panchayat Secretary. The petitioner was thereafter discharging the duties of Panchayat Secretary.

( 3. ) IT is the case of the petitioner that all of sudden the petitioner was restrained from performing the duties of Panchayat Secretary without giving any order in writing and without giving opportunity of hearing. It is contended by the petitioner that on enquiry Sarpanch informed, respondent No. 3 has directed that petitioner should not work as a Panchayat Secretary. Subsequently an application was filed by the petitioner and the order impugned Annexure P-5, dated 24-1-2001 was received by him wherein it has been indicated that the powers of the Panchayat Secretary are being withdrawn. ( 4. ) SHRI Arvind Dudawat, appearing for the petitioner submitted that the impugned order cannot be sustained as the same has been issued by the Dy. Director and the Dy. Director is not competent to issue such an order under the provisions of Section 69 (1 ). According to him under the provisions it is only the Collector who can exercise the powers of suspension under Section 69 (1 ). It is further submitted by the petitioner that no notice or opportunity of hearing was extended to him before impugned order was passed. Case of the petitioner further is that in the return it has been stated that powers of Secretary were withdrawn from the petitioner because certain criminal cases have been registered against him. It is submitted by Shri Dudawat for the petitioner that notice to show cause in the present case was issued on 21-6-2001 and the criminal case has been registered sometime in October, 2001. It is submitted that the case has been instituted only for the purpose of defending the present petition. Placing reliance on an order passed by this Court in W. P. No. 404/2001, Raj Kumar Yadav v. State of M. P. and others, it is submitted by the petitioner that the impugned order cannot be sustained, reliance is also placed by him on a judgment of Supreme Court reported in the case of Shrawan Kumar Jha and Ors. v. State of Bihar and Ors. , (1991) Supplementary (1) SCC 330.

( 5. ) PER contra the respondents have submitted that the petitioner has a right of appeal to the Competent Authority under the M. P. Panchayat Karmi (Appeal and Revision) Rules, 1995 and therefore, writ petition directly filed is not maintainable. It is further submitted that the order impugned has been passed by the Collector and Annexure P-5 is only communication of the order of the Collector. It is stated that a perusal of the order Annexure P-5 would indicate that it is clearly mentioned that the orders have been passed as per directions of the Collector. Apart from this certain note-sheet and complaints contained in Annexures P-1 and P-2 have been brought on record which according to the respondents indicate that the orders have been issued by the Collector. It is submitted by the respondents that the petitioner had committed various financial irregularities for which report was lodged with the police and certain criminal cases have been registered against him. Reliance is also placed on letter Annexure R-1, dated 17-10-2001 issued by the competent authority of Police Station, Sehore, District Shivpuri, wherein it is indicated that Crime No. 10/2001 under Sections 420/409/34,