JUDGMENT K.K. Mathew, J. 1. This is an application for quashing an order, Ext. P-3 passed by the Municipal Commissioner, Tellicherry, the 4th respondent, suspending the petitioner pending inquiry into the alleged irregularities committed by him in the discharge of his duties as Health Inspector in charge of the Health Officer of the Municipality. The main contention of the petitioner was that the Commissioner had no jurisdiction to suspend him or to conduct an inquiry into his conduct in the discharge of his official duties. 2. Section 8 (2) of the Madras Public Health Act, 1939 is as follows: "8(2). The authorities who may make appointments to the public health establishments referred to in sub-section (1), the conditions of service of the members of such establishments, and the duties of such members shall, notwithstanding anything contained in the Madras District Municipalities Act, 1920, or the Madras Local Boards Act, 1920, be governed by regulations, not inconsistent with this Act, made by the Government. Such regulations may lay down the extent to which the Director of Public Health shall have disciplinary control over the members of such public health establishments." In pursuance to this, rules called The Public Health Establishment (Local Authorities) Regulations 1940 were passed. Section 93 of the Kerala Municipalities Act, 1960 Act No. 14/1961 is as follows: 93. Control of commissioner over health officer.(1) Not?ithstanding anything contained in the Travancore-Cochin Public Health Act, 1955 or the Madras Public Health Act, 1939, the functions of the commissioner under this Act relating to publichealth matters which are conferred upon the health officer by section 14 of the Travancore-cochin Public Health Act, 1955 or section 16 of the Madras Public Health Act, 1939, shall be exercised by the health officer only with the prior sanction of the commissioner and the functions of the health officer under the said Public Health Acts so far as those functions involve expenditure from the municipal fund or administrative or disciplinary control over members of the municipal staff shall be exercised by the health officer subject to the control and supervision of the commissioner under this Act. (2) Clause (b) of sub-section (2) of section 12 of the Travancore-Cochin Public Health Act, 1955 and clause (b) of sub-section (2) of section 14 of the Madras Public Health Act, 1939, are hereby repealed. (2) Clause (b) of sub-section (2) of section 12 of the Travancore-Cochin Public Health Act, 1955 and clause (b) of sub-section (2) of section 14 of the Madras Public Health Act, 1939, are hereby repealed. From this section it is clear that disciplinary control over the members of the Municipal staff is to be exercised by the Health Officer subject to the control and supervision of the Municipal Commissioner. Section 14 of the Madras Public Health Act runs as follows: 14 (1). The Health Officer in charge of any local area shall exercise supervision and control over all other members of the public health establishment in such area. (2) (a) Save as otherwise provided in this Chapter or in any rules or regulations made under it, all appointments, transfers and punishments of the members of the public health establishment under the supervision and control of the Health Officer shall be made by the Health Officer, subject to the approval of the executive authority. (b) If for any reason the executive authority disagrees with the orders of the Health Officer under clause (a), the executive authority shall refer the matter to the Government whose decision shall be final. That the disciplinary control over the members of the Municipal staff of the public health establishment is vested in the Health Officer is made clear by this section. The provisions of rule 30 of the Public Health Establishment (Local Authorities) Regulations 1940 would put it beyond doubt. The material portion of rule 30 reads: "The Health Officer may suspend any member of the Public Health establishment of a local authority pending inquiry into his conduct for a period not exceeding three months; provided that in exceptional cases, when the inquiry cannot be completed within three months from the date of suspension, the member of the Public Health establishment may be suspended for a further period not exceeding three months with the previous sanction of the appellate authority referred to in Regulation 34 (1)." 3. Mr. Abdul Khader appearing for the 4th respondent submitted that rule 6 of the Appointment and punishment Rules made under the Madras District Municipalities Act 1920 would show that the Commissioner has power to suspend the petitioner and direct an inquiry into the irregularities committed by him in the discharge of the official duties. Mr. Abdul Khader appearing for the 4th respondent submitted that rule 6 of the Appointment and punishment Rules made under the Madras District Municipalities Act 1920 would show that the Commissioner has power to suspend the petitioner and direct an inquiry into the irregularities committed by him in the discharge of the official duties. The material portion of rule 6 of the Appointment and Punishment Rules is as follows: "The executive authority of a municipal council may suspend any officer or servant of the municipal council pending enquiry into his conduct for a period not exceeding three months, provided that in exceptional cases where the enquiry cannot be completed within three months from the date of suspension, the officer or servant may be suspended for a further period not exceeding ending three months with the previous sanction of the appropriate appellate authority referred to in sub-rule (1) of rule 8." Mr. Abdul Khader submitted that section 93 of the Kerala Municipalities Act would show that the Commissioner has got an overall supervisory and controlling jurisdiction over the Health Officer in respect of his disciplinary jurisdiction over the municipal staff in the public health establishment and that rule 6 is consistent with the provisions of section 93. I think the rule only refers to the power of the Commissioner in respect of the other employees under a Municipality and not in respect of the members of the staff employed in the public health establishment. That this is so, is clear from rule 8. Rule 8 provides for appeal against an order passed by the Commissioner under rule 6. Whilst that rule provides the forum for appeals by all other employees in a Municipality, it does not make any such provision for an appeal by a member of the staff belonging to the public health establishment in the Municipality. And then also the suspension is not for three months. It may be noted that nor rules under the Kerala Municipalities Act regarding this matter have been framed and it is not disputed by counsel appearing before me that rule 6 framed under the Madras District Municipalities Act 1920 continues in force, and that this case has to be decided on the basis of the status of the petitioner as Health Inspector. Rule 6 will not assist the 4th respondent in his contention that he could suspend the petitioner. Rule 6 will not assist the 4th respondent in his contention that he could suspend the petitioner. I am of opinion that under the provisions of the Madras Public Health Act and the rules thereunder the Health Officer alone could have suspended the petitioner. Those provisions enable him alone to take disciplinary proceedings against the members of the staff of the health establishment in a Municipality or suspend them. Those provisions being special provisions applicable to members of the municipal staff employed in the health establishment of the Municipality I am inclined to take the view that rule 6 of the Appointment and Punishment Rules framed under the Madras District Municipalities Act 1920 will enable the commissioner to suspend only the members of the staff of a Municipality other than the members of the staff of the health establishment. I am also not satisfied that the commissioner in the exercise of his supervisory or controlling jurisdiction under section 93 of Kerala Municipalities Act, 1961 could have suspended the petitioner or initiated disciplinary proceedings against him. 4. I therefore, quash Ext. P-3 order and allow the writ petition. There will be no order as to costs.