(1.) Heard. The singular contention advanced to assail the order dated 17.10.2013 is that the order is passed by the Collector to place the petitioner under suspension whereas petitioner's appointing and disciplinary authority under the rules is Chief Executive Officer (CEO). It is contended that the Collector has no authority to place the Panchayat Secretary under suspension.
(2.) This Court has decided similar matter, WP No. 7221/2013 (Satyapal Singh vs. State of MP) and opined that under Rule 4(1) of Disciplinary and Appeal Rules, 1999, the Panchayat employee can be placed under suspension by appointing authority, disciplinary authority and an authority, to whom the appointing authority is subordinate. By considering the dictionary meeting of "subordinate" and the judgment of Supreme Court on this point, this Court opined that the CEO is subordinate to the Collector and, therefore, the Collector is having authority to suspend the Panchayat Secretary. In view of said judgment, I am unable to hold that the order, Annexure P-1, is bad in law on the ground of competency of Collector. The order is otherwise appealable under the Rules. Liberty is reserved to the petitioner to prefer appeal. Petition is disposed of. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case.