CEO, Zila Panchayat can withdraw financial powers and attach a Secretary during disciplinary proceedings.

The petitioner, serving as a Gram Panchayat Secretary at Ratikirar, was suspended on 17.01.2023 following a show-cause notice regarding financial irregularities.

The High Court stayed the suspension order on 03.09.2025 in a previous writ petition (W.P. No. 27132/2025).

Subsequently, the Respondent No. 2 (CEO, Zila Panchayat) issued an order dated 26.09.2025, which reinstated the petitioner but withdrew his financial powers and "attached" him to Gram Panchayat Naya Kheda.

The petitioner challenged this order, contending it was a mala fide transfer issued by an incompetent authority (arguing only the Collector has transfer powers).

The State maintained that the order was an administrative attachment necessary for a fair departmental inquiry.

1. Whether the Chief Executive Officer, Zila Panchayat, is the competent authority to withdraw financial powers and attach a Gram Panchayat Secretary to a different location during a pending inquiry.

2. Whether the writ petition is maintainable despite the availability of an alternative statutory remedy under the Madhya Pradesh Panchayat Service Rules.

Rule 3(1)(b) of the Madhya Pradesh Panchayat Service (Gram Panchayat Secretary Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 2011, defines the "Appointing Authority" for a Gram Panchayat Secretary as the Chief Executive Officer (CEO), Zila Panchayat.

Rule 7(4) of the 2011 Rules designates the CEO of Zila Panchayat as the competent authority for taking disciplinary action and provides a statutory right of appeal to the Commissioner, Panchayat Raj Sanchanalaya, within 15 days of a punishment order.

Interpretation of the precedent Makhan Lal Shakya v. State of M.P. (W.P. No. 41864 of 2024), where the court distinguished it as applying to routine transfers rather than disciplinary attachments.

The Court reasoned that under the 2011 Rules, the CEO of the Zila Panchayat is both the appointing and the disciplinary authority for the petitioner.

Because a departmental inquiry involving financial irregularities was actively pending, the Court found that the CEO acted within his disciplinary jurisdiction to withdraw financial powers and attach the petitioner to another location to ensure a fair inquiry and prevent tampering with evidence or witnesses.

The Court rejected the petitioner's argument that the order was a "transfer" requiring the Collector's approval; instead, it characterized the order as an act of "discipline and control" exercised during the pendency of proceedings.

Consequently, the Court found no grounds to bypass the statutory framework provided by the 2011 Rules.

The Court declined to exercise its jurisdiction under Article 226 because the petitioner had an efficacious alternative statutory remedy of appeal before the Commissioner, Panchayat Raj Sanchanalaya, under Rule 7(4).

The writ petition was dismissed on the grounds of the availability of that alternative remedy.