THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.G.SHANKAR WRIT PETITION NO.27204 OF 2011 ORDER: (Per the Hon’ble Sri Justice V.V.S.Rao) The petitioner is a Panchayat Secretary (Executive Officer, Grade-II). He was posted to Gram Panchayat, Nakkapalli. While he was working there, the District Panchayat Officer sent a report on 30.06.2011 to the first respondent with regard to grave financial irregularities and misappropriation of Gram Panchayat funds. Therefore, while contemplating disciplinary proceedings, the first respondent, by proceedings dated 16.07.2011, placed the petitioner under suspension until further orders. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed O.A.No.6248 of 2011. By order dated 03.08.2011, the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal dismissed the same, observing that the petitioner has not exhausted the alternative remedy of appeal. He was given liberty to prefer an appeal before the second respondent within a period of four weeks from the date of the order. This order is assailed in the Writ Petition. The counsel for the petitioner vehemently contends that the Tribunal was in error in relegating the petitioner to the appellate authority. He would submit that as Panchayat Secretary his client has no financial powers and he only implemented the resolutions of the Gram Panchayat in terms of the Government Order being G.O.Ms.No.4 Panchayat Raj Department dated 07.01.2002 and that the order of the Tribunal is without application of mind. We have given anxious consideration to the submission made across the Bar. It is axiomatic that the power to remove a Government servant also includes the power to suspend pending enquiry. Further, Rule 8 (1) of the A.P. Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1991, empowers the appointing authority to place any employee under suspension pending enquiry. As seen from the order of the first respondent, while contemplating enquiry into the grave financial irregularities and misappropriation of Gram Panchayat funds, the petitioner was placed under suspension. In such a case, whether suspension from the service is warranted or not is certainly a matter to the appellate authority to decide. The learned Tribunal was, therefore, correct in relegating the petitioner to appellate authority. For the above reasons, the Writ Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________ (V.V.S.RAO, J) ___________________ (K.G.SHANKAR, J) 18th October 2011 RRB