1. This petition is directed against the order dated 15.10.2008 (Annexure P-I) by which the Additional Commissioner, Gwalior Division, Gwalior refused to grant stay against an order dated 6.10.2008 (Annexure P-2) by which the Collector, Ashok Nagar placed the petitioner under suspension, with a further direction that the petitioner shall be entitled for subsistence allowance and his headquarter shall be at the office of Janpad Panchayat, Chanderi.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Collector Ashok Nagar by the impugned order has not only suspended the petitioner but also directed that the petitioner shall be entitled for subsistence allowance, meaning thereby the petitioner, who was also a Panchayat Karmi, was suspended even from the post of Panchayat Karmi. The Collector, who was an appointing authority under section 69(I) of the M.P. Panchayat Raj Evam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam, 1993 was not empowered to suspend the petitioner from the post of Panchayat Karmi. The provision of M.P. Panchayat Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999 though provides a provision of suspension under rule 4, but it has not empowered the Collector to suspend the petitioner even from the post of Panchayat Karmi. It is submitted that without issuance of any show cause notice or extending an opportunity of hearing, the petitioner was placed under suspension, which order deserves to be stayed till the decision of this petition.

3. Shri Vivek Khedkar, Government Advocate appearing for the State, supported the order and submitted that on finding serious allegations against the petitioner, he was placed under suspension. There were serious allegations against the petitioner that the petitioner had made excessive expenses in respect of National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme (NREGS) and because of this he was placed under suspension. The provision of suspension is provided under rule 4 of the aforesaid Rules and the Collector was empowered to pass such an order which order is in accordance with law. The Commissioner vide order (Annexure P-l) has rightly not stayed the order which order needs no interference by this Court.

4. Both the parties placed reliance to a Division Bench's judgment of this Court in Lalla Prasad Burman v. State of M.P. [2008(II) MPWN 101=2008(3) MPLJ 394].

5. To appreciate the aforesaid contentions, the factual position in the present case may be stated:

The petitioner was appointed as Panchayat Karmi by Gram Panchayat Badera, tehsil Chanderi, district Guna, vide order Annexure P-4 dated 20.3.2002. The petitioner was declared Panchayat Secretary under section 69(1) of the M.P. Panchayat Raj Evam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam, 1993. It appears that certain complaints were made against the petitioner and the Collector, Ashok Nagar after getting a report from the Deputy Collector, Ashok Nagar found prima facie that the allegations against the petitioner were correct, directed suspension of the petitioner vide Annexure P-2 and the Deputy Director, Panchayat and Social Justice, Ashok Nagar was directed to prepare a charge-sheet against the petitioner.

6. So far as appointment of the petitioner as Panchayat Karmi is concerned, it is not in dispute that the petitioner was appointed as Panchayat Karmi by Gram Panchayat Badera. The Collector, Ashok Nagar. was empowered to appoint petitioner as Secretary under section 69(1) of the Act. Accordingly, an order Annexure P-4 was passed in this regard on 20th March, 2002. In the set of the aforesaid facts the provisions of section 69 may be referred, which read thus:

"69. Appointment of Secretary and Chief Executive Officer. -- (1) The State Government or the prescribed authority may appoint a Secretary for a Gram Panchayat or group of two or more Gram Panchayats :

Provided that the person holding the charge of a Secretary of Gram Panchayat immediately before the commencement of this Act shall continue to function as such till a Secretary is appointed in accordance with