Dama Seshadri Naidu, J.

1. All the three petitioners are the employees of the third respondent Bank. In the course of time, the petitioners have been subjected to disciplinary proceedings on account of serious irregularities in the grant of gold loans. As a part of the ongoing disciplinary proceedings, the respondent Bank suspended the petitioners from service through Exhibits P3 to P5 orders dated 21.12.2015. Assailing the said orders of suspension, the petitioners have filed the present Writ Petition. Mr. M.M. Monaye, the learned counsel for the petitioners, has singularly contended that the impugned orders of suspension were passed by the General Manager, who is not competent in terms of R. 198(6) of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules (the 'Rules' for brevity). In support of his submissions, the learned counsel has placed reliance on State of Kerala v. Saseendran (2009 (2) KLT 482 (F.B.).

2. Per contra, Sri. D. Sreekumar, the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Bank, has submitted that the General Manager has only communicated the Executive Committee's decision to suspend the petitioners. In elaboration, he has submitted that the Executive Committee, which includes the President of the respondent Bank, through Resolution No. 6 dated 21.12.2015 suspended the petitioners. He has further submitted that the said decision of the Executive Committee was ratified by the Managing Committee through Exhibit R3(b) proceedings.

3. Thus contends the learned counsel for the respondent Bank that the order of suspension is unassailable and needs no interference. In support of his submissions, the learned counsel has placed reliance on Prasanth Maroli v. Kannur Primary Co-operative Agrt. & Rural Development Bank Ltd. (2008 (4) KLT 451) and Chandrikamma v. Assistant Registrar (General) Co-operative Societies (2000 (3) KLT 940).

4. The learned counsel, in the alternative, has submitted that Exhibit R3(a) Staff Regulations approved by the Government amply empowered the General Manager to place any employees of the third respondent Bank under suspension. According to him, even the learned Full Bench of this Court in Saseendran (supra) has held that an officer authorized by the Government can place an employee under suspension though the said officer may not be the appointing authority or the superior authority to the appointing authority. The learned counsel has further placed reliance on Secretary, Ministry of Defence and Others v. Prabhash Chandra Mirdha, (2012 (3) KLT Suppl. 25 (SC) : (2012) 11 SCC 565).

5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents, as well as the learned Government Pleader, apart from perusing the record.

6. The bone of contention in this Writ Petition is whether the General Manager is competent to place the petitioners under suspension. On the other hand, the alternative issue to be resolved is whether the order of General Manager has been duly ratified by the Managing Committee of the respondent Bank in terms of R. 198(6) of the Rules.

7. To begin with, we may keep in mind that R. 198(6) authorizes an authority competent to appoint an employee to suspend the said employee pending enquiry into serious charges against the said employee.

8. It is very evident that the authority who is to place an employee under suspension shall be the authority competent to appoint the said employee. In other words, it is too well established a proposition of law to be called in question that either an appointing authority or a superior authority shall be entitled to place a delinquent employee under suspension.

9. In the light of the alternative submissions made by the learned counsel for the third respondent, we may examine the validity of Exhibits P3 to P5 on both counts: the competence of General Manager and also the supposed ratification by the Managing Committee.

10. We may begin our discussion with the issue of the General Manager's competence to place the petitione