B.N. Srikrishna, C.J.

1. This appeal has been placed before the Full Bench by an order of reference dated 11th April, 2001 made by the Division Bench of K.S. Radhakrishnan and G Sasidharan, JJ. Strictly speaking, there is no question referred for answer of this Full Bench. It is not a case where the Division Bench had difficulty in agreeing with the view expressed by another Division Bench. However, in para.6 of the reference order it is stated as under:

"We are of the view that the question whether an authority lower than the appointing authority who is not empowered under sub-r. (1) could place a Government servant under suspension under sub-r. (2) of R.10 of the Rules is a question of general importance. We, therefore, adjourn the matter for being heard by a Larger Bench."

2. R.10 of the Kerala Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules") is the relevant rule. Part IV of the Rules deals with suspension of Government Servants. Material portions of R. 10(1) and 10(2) read as under:

"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 under investigation or trial; or

(c)where final orders are pending in the disciplinary proceeding, if the appropriate authority considers that in the then prevailing circumstances it is necessary, in public interest, that the Government servant should be suspended from service:

Provided that the authority competent to place a member of the Kerala Civil Judicial Service or the Kerala Criminal Judicial Service under suspension shall be the High Court of Judicature.

(2) Where the order of suspension is made by an authority lower than the appointing authority, such authority shall forthwith report to the appointing authority, the circumstances in which the order was made."

A reading of R. 10( 1) of the Rules suggests that the suspension order can be passed: (a) by the appointing authority, (b) by any authority to which the appointing authority is subordinate, and (c) by any other authority empowered by the Government in that behalf. Sub-r. (2) of R. 10 prescribes the procedure to be followed when the suspension order emanates from any authority lower than the appointing authority, but specially empowered by the Government. All that sub-r.(2) says is that such authority shall forthwith report the circumstances in which the suspension order was made. We are unable to read sub-r.(2) of R. 10 as granting the power to suspend to anyone. The power of suspension is conferred only on the authorities named in sub-r.(l) of R.10. Sub-r.(2) specifically deals with a situation of a person other than the appointing authority or an authority superior to the appointing authority; in other words, an authority lower than the appointing authority who is specifically empowered to pass the order of suspension. The learned Judges have referred to three judgments in the order of reference. We may now consider them.

3. In Balakrishna Pillai v. State of Kerala (1993 (1) KLT 625) a learned Single Judge held that, a plain reading of R. 10( 1) shows that either the appointing authority or any authority superior to the appointing authority or any other authority empowered by the Government alone can place a Government servant under suspension. This, in our judgment, is the correct interpretation of the rule.

4.The second judgment cited is judgment in Hareendranath v. State of Kerala (1998 (1) KLT 68). We do not find in the judgment any discussion as to the source of the power of suspension. This judgment actually turns on the meaning to be given to sub-r.(2) of R. 10, where the order of suspension is made by the authority lower than the appointing authority. The decisio