K.A. Abdul Gafoor, J.

Ext.P1 is the order placing the petitioner under suspension. The petitioner is a Tribal Extension Officer. A case is registered against him under Sections 13 (1) (c ) and (d) read with Section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and Sections 409 and 429 of the Indian Penal Code in the Vigilance Police Station at Wayanad. The allegation in the criminal case is that he, by abusing his official position, misappropriated government money to the extent of Rs. 98,120/- meant for the execution work relating to the construction of eleven Adivasi Houses at Thavinhal Panchayat and Cheated the Government and poor Adivasi beneficiaries. He also thus enriched himself causing corresponding loss to the Government. Government felt that it was not desirable to allow him to continue in office as he committed a grave offence. It was in the above circumstances the Government issued Ext.P1 order of suspension.

2. Competence of the Government to place him under suspension is not disputed before me as Government is superior to his appointing authority. But assailing Ext.P1, it is submitted that Ext.P1 order has been passed by the Government in the Vigilance Department. He is an employee in Tribunal Extension Department. Therefore, only the Government in Tribunal Extension Department alone can place under suspension. His appointing authority is in that department. As per Rule 10 (1) of the Kerala Civil Services (Classification Control and Appeals) Rules, 1960, only the appointing authority or any authority higher than the appointing authority or any authority empowered by Government in that behalf alone can place him under suspension. These are, according to him, his appointing authority in the Tribal Department or any superior authority in the Tribal Department or the Government in Tribal Department. The Government in vigilance Department does not come within that.

3. It is further contended that suspension is enabled as per Rule 10 of Kerala Civil Service (Classification, Control and Appeals) Rules. Those rules are framed under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India. The Secretary in Vigilance Department has passed Ext.P1 order of suspension exercising the powers vested in him in terms of Rules of Business issued by the Governor of Kerala under Article 166 of the Constitution of India regulating the conduct of the Government business. Therefore, there is conflict between the two sets of rules issued by the Government under Article 166 of the Constitution of India and also under the proviso to Article 309 of the constitution of India. The latter is special rule governing only government employees whereas the former is the general rule regulating government business. The latter shall prevail and therefore, any order of suspension passed by the Government in Vigilance Department is illegal and without authority.

4. When the petitioner does not dispute the power of the Government to place him under suspension, and when the matter is viewed in that angle, there arise no conflict between the rules. First of all, Kerala Civil Service (Classification, control and Appeals)Rules 1960 though issued initially in terms of the proviso under Article 309, consequent on enactment of public Service Act, 1968 that rule has to be deemed as the rules framed under that Act as per the provisions in Section 3 thereof. As held in Danie v. Board of Revenue (ILR 1975 (1) Kerala) the legal fiction embodied in Section 3 of the Act enables the Act to treated as having been in force when the Kerala Civil Services ( Classification, Control and Appeals) Rules were promulgated under the proviso to Article 309. The Kerala Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeals) Rule 1960 becomes the statutory rules framed under the Kerala Public Services Act. The rules framed under that statute are the general rules governing the service conditions of all the Government employees in the State; whereas the rules framed by the Governor