P.D. DINAKARAN, C.J.

The writ petition is directed against the interim order dated 11.2.2009 made in Application No.602/2009 by the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore, wherein the petitioner had chosen to challenge the order of suspension dated 2.2.2009 passed by the first respondent herein on the basis of the case registered in Crime No.14/2008 by the Lokayukta Police under sections 13(1) (e) R/W 13(2) of the Prevention or Corruption Act, alleging that the petitioner had amassed wealth disproportionate to his known source of income.

2. According to the petitioner, he was appointed as Assistant Engineer in the Public Works Department and was promoted as Assistant Executive Engineer. According to him, his services were lent from the parent department (PWD) to the lending department, namely, the second respondent. As per Rule 15(1)(2C), it is only respondent-2 who has got the power to initiate the impugned disciplinary proceedings, much less, to pass the impugned suspension order pending the departmental enquiry.

3. The said contention of the petitioner has not been accepted by the Tribunal on the ground that rule 15(1)(2C) of the Karnataka Civil Services (Classi