1. Since singular and similar issue is raised by the petitioners against the impugned suspension order, with the consent of parties, matters are analogously heard and decided by this common order.

2. In these cases, the suspension order is called in question. The suspension order is approved/passed by Collector. The common ground is that the disciplinary/appointing authority of the petitioners is CEO. It is further contended that appointing authority as per new Rules of 2011 for Panchayat Secretary is CEO. Thus Collector has no authority to place the petitioner under suspension. It is further contended that CEO cannot be treated as subordinate to Collector.

3. Learned Govt. Advocate submits that this order is appealable and it cannot be said that order is passed by incompetent authority.

4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

5. Rule 4 (1) of Madhya Pradesh Panchayat Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999, reads as under :-

“4.Suspension -(1) The appointing authority or any authority to which it is subordinate or disciplinary authority in that behalf, may place a member of Panchayat Service under suspension.”

A bare perusal of the said rules makes it clear that following authorities can place the panchayat employee under suspension :-

(i) appointing authority

(ii) any authority to which appointing authority is subordinate and

(iii) disciplinary authority.

6. Even if the Collector is not appointing or disciplinary authoirty, question is whether CEO can be said to be a subordinate to the Collector. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that CEO in the administrative hierarchy is not immediate subordinate to the Collector. It is further contended that Collector is not an appellate authority against the order of CEO.

7. As per Black's Law Dictionary (9th Edition) the word “subordinate” means “1. placed in or belonging to a lower rank, class, or position < a subordinate lien>; 2. Subject to another's authority or control; to place in a lower rank, class, or position; to assign a lower priority to <subordinate the debt to a different class of claims>”

8. In the considered opinion of this Court, the rule making authority has not placed any limitation in the meaning of “ subordinate”. The dictionary meaning of subordinate is very wide. It means lower rank, position, control and lower layer etc. In the considered opinion of this Court, in absence of putting any embargo or condition with the word “subordinate” it has to be given widest meaning. Thus CEO must be treated as subordinate to the Collector. It cannot be disputed that CEO is in lower rank/position and class in comparison to the Collector. In AIR 1963 SC 550 (R.G. Jacob v. Republic of India) the apex Court considered the word “subordinate” and opined as under :-

“When with that intention the legislature has used the word "subordinate" in S.165 without any limitation there is no justification for reading into the word the limitation suggested by the learned Counsel by the words " in respect of those very functions". It is plain that the interpretation suggested by Mr. Kumaramangalam needs the addition of some words in the section, and that is clearly not permissible by the use of the word "subordinate" without any qualifying words, the legislature has expressed its legislative intention of making punishable such subordinates also who have no connection with the functions with which the business or transaction is concerned. To limit the meaning of "subordinate" in the section as suggested by the learned Counsel would be defeating that legislative intention and laying down a different legislative policy. This the Court has no power to do. The appellant has therefore rightly been held to be "subordinate" to the Joint Chief Controller, even though the appellant had no functions to discharge in connection with the appeal before the Joint Chief Controller of Imports and Exports.” (Emphasize supplied)

9. This Court in WP No.