The court emphasized the importance of adhering to the Rules of Business of the Government of Kerala and upheld the suspension order as being in public interest.

Challenge in tlu's original petition against an order of suspension issued by the 2nd respondent, the Commissioner and Secretary to Vigilance (D) Department, against the petitioner's is mainly on the ground that the 2nd respondent has no jurisdiction to issue the order. The 1st petitioner is an Executive Engineer and 2nd petitioner is a Head Draftinan in Puhlic Works Department under the 1st respondent. During the

period 1991-92 and 1992-93 respectively the petitioners were working in the Integrated Tribunal Development Project (I.T.D.P.). They were posted to the project, as the project was undertaken by the Public Works Department. Under Ext. P1 order dated 2 J-10-1994, which is under challenge in lliis original petition, petitioners were placed under suspension with immediate effect pending investigation and disciplinary action against them on the allegation that they abused their official position and committed grave irregularities and malpractices in the execution of second reach of Poduvayal-Ainbannoor road, Pudur Panchayat and misappropriated an amount ol'Rs.12,923/- with the active help and connivance of the Convenor of the work. Ext. P1 order has been issued by the Commissioner and Secretary to

Government, Vigilance Department.

2. Petitioners would contend that the order of suspension is bad for two reasons, viz., the order has been issued by an authority, which has no jurisdiction to issue the order as per the provisions contained under Rule 10 of the Kerala Civil Services (Classification, Control and appeal) Rules and that no public interest would be served by the suspension of the petitioners. Relevant portion of Rule 10 reads as follows: -

"10. Suspension- (1) The appointing authority or any authority to which it is subordinate or any other authority empowered by the Government in that behalf may at any time place a Government servant under suspension,

a) where a disciplinary proceeding against him is contemplated or is pending; or

b) where a case against him in respect of any criminal offence is uiider investigation or trial; or

c) where final orders are pending in the disciplinary proceeding.

if the asppropriate authority considers that in the then prevailing circumstances it is necessary in public interest, that the Government servant should be suspended from service".

Petitioners contend that the Secretary to Government, Vigilance (D) Department is neither the appointing authority nor an authority to which it is subordinate. The appointing authority is the Government and since the petitioners are members of service under the Public Works Department, orders are to he issued by the 3rd respondent, the Secretary to Public Works Department, Government of Kerala. He is also not an authority empowered by the Government in mat behalf as contemplated by Rule 10. Ft is further contended that an amendment to the Rules of Business of the Government of Kerala under G.O. (MS) No. 169/94/GAD dated 23-4-1994 produced as Ext. R2(a ) along with the counter affidavit of the 2nd respondent docs not amount to empowerment as -envisaged by Rule 10. Learned Counsel appealing on behalf of the petitioners pointed out several notifications issued under sub-rule (1) of Rule 10 of the Kerala Civil services(classification, Control and appeal) Rules, 1960 empowering officers other than those who comes under the I st and 2nd part of sub-rule (1) of Rule 10. He contends that no such notification has been issued by the Government in exercise of its power under sub-rule (1) of Rule 10 empowering the 2nd respondent to issue an order of suspension against the petitioners. According to the petitioners, Ext. R2(a ) is no substitute for a notification to be issued in exercise of the powers under sub-rule (1) of Rule 10 of the Kerala Civil Services (Classification, Control and appeal) Rules. These mles are issued under Art.309 of the Constitution of India, where as Ext. R2(a ) has been issued in exercise of the powers conferred by clauses (2) and