The District Collector, being the District Development Officer and the Head of the Department under whose direct control the Vikas Adhikari was working, was the competent authority to pass the order of suspension.

1. - This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 6.7.1994, passed by the learned Single Judge, by which the learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition filed by Bheru Lal Siroya and quashed the order Annexure-5 dated 4.5.1994, passed by the District Collector, Rajsamand, by which Mr. Bheru Lal Siroya was put under suspension.

2. Mr. Bheru Lal Siroya was appointed as teacher in the Education Department on 1.7.1959. He was later on promoted as Lecturer (School Education). On 11.8.1989, he was promoted as the Education Extension Officer. After his promotion as Education Extension Officer, he was sent on deputation to the Gramin Vikas and Panchayati Raj Department. On 29.8.1989, he was posted as the Education Extension Officer in the Gramin Vikas and Panchayati Raj Department. On 25.6.1993, he was selected and posted as the Vikas Adhikari. While he was working as the Vikas Adhikari, Panchayat Samiti, Railmagra, in a trap arranged by the Rajasthan Intelligence Bureau, he was caught red-handed taking the bribe of Rs. 1,000/-. The District Collector, Rajsamand acting under rule 13 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 (for short, 'the C.C.A. Rules, 1958'), in contemplation of an enquiry, vide order dated 4.5.1994, put the petitioner-respondent under suspension. Bheru Lal filed a writ petition challenging the order of his suspension Annexure-5 dated 4.5.1994. The learned Single Judgen placed reliance on the judgment of another Single Bench given in Mohan Lal Bishnoi v. State of Rajasthan and others (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2029 of 1992 decided on March 29, 1993) and quashed the order of suspension Annexure-5 dated 4.5.1994 passed by the learned District Collector, Rajsamand. The learned Single Judge was of the view that the order of suspension has not been passed by the competent authority as the District Collector was neither the Disciplinary Authority nor the appointing authority of Bheru Lal. It is against this judgment that the State of Rajasthan and another have preferred this special appeal.

3. It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellants that Bheru Lal, working as the Vikas Adhikari in Panchayat Samiti, Railmagra in the Department of Gramin Vikas and Panchayati Raj, was under the control of the District Collector, Rajsamand, being the District Development Officer and he was the Disciplinary Authority so far as the imposition of minor penalties of censure or withholding of two annual grade increments (without cumulative effect) is concerned and being the Disciplinary Authority, he was competent to pass the order putting the petitioner-respondent under suspension and the learned Single Judge was not right in quashing the order of suspension passed by the learned District Collector, Rajsamand, on the ground that he was not competent to pass the order of suspension. The learned counsel for the respondent (the original petitioner in the writ petition), on the other hand, has supported the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge and submitted that the petitioner was a member of Education Services and the appointing authority of the petitioner-respondent was the Director of Education and, therefore, the District Collector was neither the Disciplinary Authority nor the appointing authority of the petitioner and as such the order of suspension passed by him is without jurisdiction. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the respondent-petitioner has placed reliance over the judgment of the learned Single Judge rendered in Mohan Lal Vishnoi v. The State of Rajasthan and others (supra).

4. We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties.

5. By way of putting an official under suspension, he neither loses his office nor he suffers from any degradation but he is temporarily debarred from performing his official functions in the public interest as his continuation on the same post may again result in his indulging in