JUDGMENT

Shrivastava, J. –

1. This order will govern the disposal of W. A. No. 727/2020, W. A. No. 729/2020 and W. A. No. 741/2020 since it is jointly submitted by learned counsel for parties that all these appeals involve common questions in identical fact situation.

2. These appeals have been filed by the State against the order of the learned Single Judge dated 13.2.2020 passed in W. P. No. 18128/2019 (S), W. P. No. 15511/2019 (S) and W. P. No. 27982/2019 (S).

3. For convenience, facts are taken from W. A. No. 727/2020.

4. Respondent had filed the W. P. No. 18128/2019 (S) with the plea that he was appointed as Panchayat Karmi in the year 2006 and was later notified as Panchayat Secretary of the Gram Panchayat in 2006 and was regularized in 2008. The Chief Executive Officer of Jilla Panchayat had passed the order dated 29.7.2019 suspending the respondent on the ground of committing serious financial irregularities, and aggrieved with this order of suspension, he had filed the writ petition raising the plea that the order of suspension was wrongly passed. The appellants had filed their reply and supported the order of suspension.

5. Learned Single Judge, after hearing both the parties, by the order under appeal has quashed the order of suspension on the ground that the order was without jurisdiction as no provision exists in the rules to suspend a Panchayat Secretary. Learned Single Judge has opined that M. P. Panchayat Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999, which contain the general power to suspend, were made applicable by unamended rule 7 of the M. P. Panchayat Service (Gram Panchayat Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules 2011, but subsequently rule 7 has been amended on 9.8.2017 and under the amended rule, no such power of suspension exists, therefore, a Gram Panchayat Secretary cannot be suspended.

6. Learned counsel for appellants submits that the CEO of Jilla Panchayat being the appointing authority, is competent to suspend the Panchayat Secretary. He further submits that by the notification dated 23.1.2020 it has been clarified that the CEO of the Jilla Panchayat is competent to suspend a Panchayat Secretary. He has also submitted that since the clarificatory circular has been issued to fill up the gap in the rule, therefore, it will have the binding force.

7. Learned counsel for respondent, supporting the order of the learned Single Judge, has submitted that though prior to the amendment in the Rules of 2011 there was a provision for suspending the Panchayat Secretary, but after the amendment of 2017 in rule 7, no such provision for suspending a Panchayat Secretary exists, therefore, there is no power vested with the authorities to suspend a Gram Panchayat Secretary. He has further submitted that the notification/circular dated 23.1.2020 has no binding effect and even otherwise, no such circular was in existence when the impugned order of suspension was passed.

8. We have heard the learned counsel for parties and perused the record.

9. Undisputedly the services of the Gram Panchayat Secretary are governed by the M. P. Panchayat Service (Gram Panchayat Secretary Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 2011 (for short, “Rules of 2011”). Schedule I of the Rules of 2011 clearly provides that the CEO of Jilla Panchayat is the appointing authority of Gram Panchayat Secretary. There is also no dispute that rule 7 of Rules of 2011, prior to its amendment in 2017, contained the provision relating to the applicability of M. P. Panchayat Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999 (for short, “Rules of 1999”) and rule 4 of Rules of 1999 contains the provision for suspension of a member of panchayat service. By the amendment dated 9.8.2017, rule 7 of Rules of 2011 has been substituted and the newly incorporated rule 7 is silent about suspension or applicability of Rules of 1999.

10. In the aforesaid backdrop, the issue arises for consideration before this Court as to whether a Panchayat Secretary can be suspended by the