Withdrawal of Panchayat Secretary financial powers is not suspension and does not require prior hearing.

The petitioner, appointed as a Panchayat Karmi in 1995 and later notified as a Panchayat Secretary, was alleged to have failed to organize a Gram Sabha meeting on April 14, 2013, and remained unreachable.

On June 14, 2013, the Additional Collector issued an order originally removing him from the post, which was modified the same day to a withdrawal of financial powers.

The petitioner unsuccessfully challenged the removal in appeal and filed multiple prior writ petitions (W.P. No. 2714/2016 and W.P. No. 2725/2017).

In the 2017 petition, the court declined relief as the petitioner had not specifically challenged the "modified" order withdrawing financial powers; consequently, the petitioner filed the present writ seeking restoration of financial powers.

1. Whether the present petition is barred by the principle of res judicata due to the dismissal of the earlier writ petition.

2. Whether the withdrawal of financial powers of a Panchayat Karmi acting as a Secretary constitutes a "suspension" requiring a formal inquiry and periodic review.

3. Whether the indefinite withdrawal of financial powers (13 years) is legally sustainable.

The Court applied the principle of res judicata, which requires a prior decision on the merits of the specific issue to bar a subsequent claim.

The Court relied on the Full Bench decision in Chandrapal Yadav v. State of M.P. (2016), which established that a Panchayat Karmi notified as a Secretary holds a "pleasure appointment" regarding the secretarial duties; thus, withdrawing such duties/powers does not constitute a disciplinary suspension or reduction in rank.

The Court also invoked the principle from P.K. Chinnasamy v. Government of Tamil Nadu (1987), asserting that public officers must be given work commensurate with their status and should not be kept without duties indefinitely while being paid from public funds.

The Court first dismissed the res judicata objection, noting that the 2017 petition was dismissed on technical grounds (failure to challenge the modified order) rather than on the merits of the withdrawal itself.

Applying Chandrapal Yadav, the Court found that because the petitioner’s substantive post remained Panchayat Karmi, the withdrawal of financial powers was not a "suspension" in the legal sense.

However, the Court observed that the petitioner had been deprived of his primary functions for 13 years based on a relatively minor allegation and that the petitioner’s explanation—that he was attending another Gram Sabha meeting due to holding dual charges—was supported by a recommendation from the CEO of the Janpad Panchayat in 2020 to restore his powers.

The Court reasoned that keeping an officer without work indefinitely violates administrative logic and the public interest.

It directed the Chief Executive Officer of the Zila Panchayat, Morena (as the current appointing authority under the 2011 Rules), to reconsider the restoration of the petitioner's financial powers within 60 days, accounting for the gravity of the original allegations and the CEO Janpad Panchayat’s 2020 recommendation.