The main legal point established in the judgment is the jurisdiction of the State Government to suspend an employee, the authority to initiate disciplinary action and suspend an employee, and the power of the Vigilance Department to suspend, as supported by relevant legal provisions and case law.

AR. Lakshmanan, J.

Heard Mr. Alexander Thomas, Government Pleader for appellants and Mr. P. Kesavan Nair for respondent.

2. This appeal is by the State of Kerala challenging the judgment in O.P. 10208/ 97 of a learned Single judge of this Court. The Writ Appeal was argued by both counsel appearing on either side at length. The respondent/ petitioner in the O.P. filed the writ petition to quash Exts. P10, P16 and P17. Ext. P10 is the proceedings of the Government of Kerala, Vigilance Department dated 16.9.1996 placing the respondent under suspension pending disciplinary action against him when the respondent was acting as a Director of ANERT. Ext. P16 is the order passed by the Government of Kerala dated 16.6.1997 reinstating the respondent in service without prejudice to the disciplinary action pending against him and in public interest. The respondent was also reverted to his parent department viz., Technical Education Department in public interest and the Director of Technical Education Department was directed to arrange for suitable posting to the respondent herein. Ext. P17 is against an order passed by the Government of Kerala dated 27.6.1997 expressing its decision to initiate further disciplinary action against the respondent under K.C.S.(C.C. & a.) Rules. Considering the seriousness of the charges against the respondent the Government has placed him under suspension forthwith. These three proceedings were challenged by the respondent on the ground that only the disciplinary authorities can place the respondent under suspension and that the Government not being such an authority, Ext. P10 is with out jurisdiction. It is further submitted that with the regularisation of the respondent as Director of the Agency, the Government has ceased to have any disciplinary control over the respondent and only the executive committee of the Agency can place him under suspension. It is submitted that the third respondent in the O.P. not being the disciplinary authority has no jurisdiction to issue the memo of charges to the respondent after conducting enquiry on those charges and that Exts. P10, P12 and P14 have been passed with the intention of keeping the respondent away from the Director's post by any means and therefore, it is submitted that they are vitiated by malafides. On the side of the State a counter affidavit was filed. It has been contended that since the Government had appointed the respondent as Director, the Government is the appointing authority and have got every power to take disciplinary action against the respondent. It was also submitted that the Technical Education Directorate/ Higher Education Department has not terminated the respondent's lien in the Department of Technical Education, and respondent continue as a deputationist in the ANERT and is still under the disciplinary control of the State of Kerala. It was further contended that since the respondent was nominated by the Government, the Government have full authority to take appropriate action against the respondent and have powers to suspend ;the Director when the Government finds prima facie irregularities established as against the respondent.

3. Learned Judge however did not agree with the contentions raised by the Government of Kerala. According to the learned judge, the State of Kerala has no jurisdiction either to revert the respondent or to suspend him. When the respondent was working on deputation as Director, he applied for the post of Director, he was interviewed and selected and thereafter by passing Ext. P9 order the character of appointment of respondent as a deputationist has been changed into one of regular basis and thereafter the State of Kerala has ceased to have any control over the respondent and it is ANERT alone which has got disciplinary control over the respondent and therefore, the respondent cannot be reverted back to his parent department by the State. In so far as Ext. P17 is concerned learned judge was of the view t