( 1 ) HEARD the learned advocates. With the consent of the learned advocates, the petition is heard and finally disposed of.

( 2 ) THE petitioner before this Court is the Chief Administrative Officer in the Institute of Plasma Research, the respondent no. 1 herein [hereinafter referred to as `the Institute]. The respondent no. 2 is the Chairman of the Governing Council of the Institute and the respondent no. 3 is the Director in the Institute. The petitioner challenges the validity of the Order dated 31st August, 1999 made by the Director whereby the petitioner has been placed under suspension.

( 3 ) IT is contended that the petitioner is the Chief Administrative Officer in the Institute and the Governing Council of the Institute is the appointing authority. The management and the administration of the Institute is governed by the Bye-laws made in that behalf. The said Bye-laws do not confer power upon the Institute or any of its officers to suspend any of its employees; except otherwise by way of punishment i. e. , the Institute has no power to suspend its employee pending disciplinary action, much less when such an action is contemplated. Even if it is assumed that the Institute has power to suspend its employee, pending disciplinary action or when such disciplinary action is contemplated, such power is conferred upon the appointing authority alone. The petitioner being the Chief Administrative Officer, it is the Governing Council which is the appointing authority and except the Governing Council, no other officer could have suspended the petitioner. The impugned order having been made by the Director, it suffers from the vice of inherent lack of jurisdiction and is required to be quashed and set-aside. It is contended that the impugned order of suspension is actuated by malafide with a view to sidelining the petitioner and to confer the administrative powers upon one Shri Abhijit Sen, Senior Professor and Dean in the Institute. The impugned order having been made without the authority of law, the same cannot be validated by ex post facto validation by the Governing Council. In any view of the matter, on the facts of the case, the impugned order of suspension was not warranted. Mr. Sinha has relied upon the judgments of the Supreme Court in the matters of P. R Nayak v. Union of India [air 1972 SC 554]; Chairman and Managing Director, Andhra Bank and Ors. v. Ramoo Ramesh and Another [ (1997) 11 SCC 610]; of Capt. Paulanthony v. Bharat Gold Mines Limited and Anr. , [1999 (3) SCC 679]; and of Calcutta High Court in the matter of Siten Bose v. Ananda Bazar Patrika (Private) Limited [1981 LLN 529].

( 4 ) THE petition is contested by the respondents. The Director has made counter affidavit and has contended that the Director is in overall charage of the Institute and has power to act in case of emergency. It is contended that there were allegations of grave misconduct of corruption and destroying the official records against the petitioner which warranted the impugned order of suspension. It is further contended that the order of suspension has been made pursuant to the decision of the Governing Council. Further, pending this petition, under Office Memorandum dated 6th December, 1999, a chargesheet has also been issued against the petitioner. By the said Office memorandum, the petitioner has been placed under suspension pending disciplinary action, therefore also, the suspension of the petitioner requires to be upheld. In support of their contentions, learned advocates have relied upon Bye-laws 4. 1. 10, 4. 1. 18, 5. 1, 5. 1. 1 and Appendix A/2 thereto. The said Bye-laws read as under :- `4. 1. 10 DISCIPLINE : the authority which appoints a member of the staff of the Institute may suspend and discharge, dismiss, or impose any other suitable penalty for misconduct or for breach of the terms and conditions of his appointment. The disciplinary authority may hold an enquiry if it is of the opinion that such an enquiry