JUDGMENT Rakesh Tiwari, J.
1. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record.
2. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order of suspension dated 3.11.2000 passed by respondent No. 1, Annexure-l to the writ petition.
3. The petitioner, who is a class-III employee, was placed under suspension by Sri Santosh Kumar Khare, who was holding the charge of Deputy Director of Agriculture. The disciplinary authority of the petitioner is Deputy Director of Agriculture. At the relevant time, when the impugned order dated 3.11.2000 was passed , Sri Santosh Kumar Khare was performing the functions of the Deputy Director of Agriculture as stop gap arrangement. It is contended that since Sri Santosh Kumar Khare was not vested with the power of Deputy Director of Agriculture, he was not authorized to suspend the petitioner.
4. The petitioner relies upon 1998 UPLBEC 1433 Suresh Chandra Maheshwari v. State of U.P.and Ors. and Chairman and Managing Director, Andhra Bank and Ors. v. Ramoo Ramesh and Anr. in support of his contention that the order of suspension passed by a person lower in rank than the appointing authority, is not valid.
5. In Suresh Chandra Maheshwari(Supra) the suspension order was passed by the Deputy Cane Commissioner, whereas the appointing authority was Cane Commissioner. The power was thereafter delegated to the Deputy Cane Commissioner. In these circumstances, the Apex Court has held that subsequent authorization in regard to appointment for the post, does not make the initial order valid.
6. Similarly, in, Chairman and Managing Director, Andhra Bank and others (Supra) making a distinction between the punishing authority and the suspending authority, who is nominated, the Apex Court held that the authority competent to suspend was different. It has been further held that in absence of such nomination, the punishing authority could not ipso facto be treated to be competent to suspend the delinquent employee during the pendency of departmental enquiry. Hence the Assistant General Manager, who was competent to remove or dismiss the respondent, in absence of such nomination under Regulation 12 of the A.P. Bank Officer, Employees (Disciplinary and Appeal), Rules, order passed by him prior to 16.5.1991 suspending the respondent, was incompetent.
7. As stated earlier in the body of the judgment, the petitioner had not brought any material document on record to show that Sri Santosh Kumar Khare while holding the charge of Deputy Director of Agriculture, was not vested with the power of suspension or there is any rule or regulation which may distinguish between the punishing and the suspending authorities. The rulings cited by the petitioner are, therefore, no help to him and are clearly distinguishable.
8. It is not disputed that Sri Santosh Kumar Khare was holding the charge of the Deputy Director of Agriculture and was exercising powers of the post. There is no illegality in the impugned suspension order dated 3.11.2000. The petitioner was not suspended by a person lower in rank than the disciplinary authority. He was suspended by Sri Santosh Kumar Khare while functioning on the post of Deputy Director of Agriculture, which is the post disciplinary authority
9. For the reasons stated above, the writ petition fails and is dismissed. The interim order dated 11.12.2000 is vacated. No order as to costs.