SHYAMSITNDAR, J. ( 1 ) IN this writ petition the short point that arises for consideration is whether government can place under suspension a bill collector appointed by the village panchayat. ( 2 ) THE facts are the petitioner herein was appointed by respondent-2 as a bill collector i and according to Mr. Narayana rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, the appointment dated back to the year 1982. It now transpires the state government has passed an order as per annexurc-a placing the petitioner under suspension on the basis of a detailed investigation said to have been conducted by the special cell of the revenue department, Bangalore in the course of which, it appears, several serious lapses and irregularities touching revenue lands was found to have been committed by the petitioner and three others. In the light of the report the government had thought fit to place all those persons, including the petitioner under suspension with effect from the date of the said order ic. 20th october, 1990 (anncxure-a ). Precisely the legality of this order is in question now. ( 3 ) THE contention put forward on behalf of the petitioner is that the government has no disciplinary control over the employees of a panchayat who are governed by a separate set of rules on the basis of which a disciplinary proceedings can be initiated and concluded. In addition it is urged that the petitioner having been appointed by the secretary of the panchayat, he could not have been placed under suspension by the government, however high and mighty, it may be. ( 4 ) I have heard the learned government pleader in this behalf. Apart from mentioning that government being the fountain source of all power and, therefore, cannot be denied the power to deal with an employee of the panchayat, the panchayat itself being a creature of a statute enacted by the state legislature, the learned government pleader says the impugned order being only an order of suspension the court should not readily interfere with the same. I am afraid the submission as aforesaid has little of merit. I am afraid the submission as aforesaid has little of merit. Merely because government is the repository of power in exercise of which it could create an institution, it does not mean that after creating an institution and enacting rules under which those associated with the institution should be dealt with, government cannot thereafter resurrect the power for dealing with such persons on the premise that it was after all the author of the power transmitted to the institution concerned. I am afraid once government parts with the power to deal with the employees of the panchayat in accordance with the rules framed thereunder, it cannot thereafter, fall-back on some national superiority based on the assumption that it still has at its disposal some residual authority to deal with such persons when it really has none. The Karnataka taluk board employees recruitment and conditions of service rules, 1962 have been framed by the state government in exercise of the power under Section 210 of the Mysore village panchayats and local boards Act, 1959 (mysore act x of 1959 ). By framing the above rules whatever power the government had regards taking disciplinary action, it had parted with them in favour of others. There is clearly no residual authority in the government for pursuing a panchayat employee on and after the enactment of the rules referred to supra. Now under the said rules, subclause (2) of Rule 28 enacts the procedure for taking disciplinary action against panchayat employee. It reads:"without prejudice to the Provisions of any law for the time being in force, the secretary of the panchayat shall, before making any orders imposing on a panchayat employee the punishment of fine, suspension, withholding of increment or reduction of pay under Section 82 (1), obtain and consider the explanation of such employee provided the fine shall not be imposed nn employees other than peons, scavangers, sweepers and lightman. The order that may be passed shall contain the reasons for imposing the punishment. "sub-clause (2) referred to supra makes it clear the power of imposing any punishment including the punishment of suspension fine etc. Etc. , is referable only to the secretary of the panchayat who can in the context pass such orders as deemed fit. The order that may be passed shall contain the reasons for imposing the punishment. "sub-clause (2) referred to supra makes it clear the power of imposing any punishment including the punishment of suspension fine etc. Etc. , is referable only to the secretary of the panchayat who can in the context pass such orders as deemed fit. If that be the real position under the rules and regard being had to the fact there is nothing in the rules indicating the availability of any authority in the government to exercise disciplinary powers over a panchayat official, it is obvious that the order made by the government under Annexure-A placing the petitioner under suspension is clearly without any jurisdiction. on this ground the writ petition has to succeed. ( 5 ) ACCORDINGLY, i make an order allowing the writ petition and quash Annexure-A to the extent it refers to the petitioner herein. It remains effective in respect of others cited in that order. I may also mention in passing, that a similar view has been taken by shivaraj patil, j. , in W. P. 25879/82 disposed off on 26th july, 1990. Rule issued and affirmed. Writ petition allowed. --- *** --- .