ORDER

1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner, who is aggrieved by the order dated 6.1.2020 passed by the respondent No. 2 placing the petitioner under suspension. The said order has been challenged by the petitioner on the ground of lack of authority. In other words, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the impugned order has been passed by an authority incompetent to pass it.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of this Court to Annexure P/1, which is the order of appointment dated 4.10.2008, by which the petitioner was appointed on the post of Executive Engineer, in Sidhi Division of the Public Works Department. He was posted at the time of his appointment in the Public Works Department, Sub-division Umaria. Under the circumstances, there is no dispute that the petitioner is an employee of the State Government, the Parent Department being the Public Works Department.

3. Annexure P/2 is an order dated 23.1.2017, by which, the petitioner, in addition to his duties as the office of the SDO, Public Works Department, Division Umaria was given additional charge of supervising the electrical works of the under construction buildings of the Municipal Council at Chandia, Pali, Norazabad and Umaria. The said order was passed by the Collector who was the Project Officer in the Department of District Urban Development Authority. The said order is very clear that it is not an order of posting or appointment of the petitioner to the Municipal Council, Chandia and the other three Municipal Councils. It very clearly reflects that the petitioner, in addition to his duties as SDO of the Public Works Department at Umaria was to supervise the electrical fittings of the buildings under construction in the four Municipal Councils mentioned hereinabove.

4. Vide the impugned order dated 6.1.2020, the petitioner was placed under suspension for an alleged defalcation of Rs. 24,46,727/- relating to electrical and civil works being supervised by him in Municipal Council, Chandia. The impugned order was passed by the Commissioner of Shahdol Division and which, according to the petitioner, is an incompetent authority as the petitioner was not serving on deputation under the Urban Administration Department.

5. Learned counsel for the respondent/State has drawn the attention of this Court to the reply filed by them with specific reference to paragraphs- 5 and 6. The State has relied upon rule 20 and rule 9 of the Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal Rules), 1966 (hereinafter referred to as 'Rules of 1966').

6. Learned counsel for the State has argued that the Commissioner of the Urban Development Department could have legitimately passed the impugned order in view of rule 20. According to the learned counsel for the State, rule- 20 provides that where the services of a government servant are lent by one department to another or to the Union Government or to any other State Government or any authority sub-ordinate thereto or to a local or other authority which the rule refers to as the "borrowing authority", the borrowing authority shall have the powers of the appointing authority for the purpose of placing the government servant under suspension. Learned counsel for the State has also referred to rule 9 of the Rules of 1966. Where rule 9(1) provides that a government servant may be placed under suspension by the appointing authority or any authority to which, it is subordinate or the disciplinary authority or to any other authority empowered in that behalf by the Governor by general or special orders.

7. Learned counsel for the State has also referred to the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in WA No. 727/2020 ( State of M.P. and others v. Ramesh Gir -the lead case.) Learned counsel for the State has impressed upon this Court that where the Rules are silent about the powers of suspension, then the general principle of suspension will apply under the ordinary law based upon master and