Judgment :- 1. An young agricultural graduate, who got a regular appointment as Junior Agricultural Officer, N. E. S. Block, Balussery, Kozhikode District only four months back as per Ext. P2 order dated 21-8-1972 of the Director of Agriculture, has approached this Court with a prayer for quashing Ext. P3 order dated 13-12-1972 of the District Collector, Calicut suspending him from service pending enquiry of the allegations of misconduct against him. Ext. P3 proceeds on the basis of a report of the Assistant Development Commissioner that it was represented to him by the Block Development Officer when be visited the Block Office on 12-12-1972 that the petitioner behaved in a ruffianly manner and abused the Block Development Officer in the presence of the public who had gone to his office on business, that three members of the staff testified to this conduct of the petitioner, that the petitioner acted in a very arbitrary way in the distribution of the very rare and highly fancied T & D seedlings though he had been specifically instructed by the Block Development Officer to do the distribution in consultation with the Village Extension Officer and that the Block Office peon detected the attempt of the petitioner to remove certain records in the absence of the B. D. O. presumably in an attempt to tamper them. On the next day, i. e., on 13121972 the Collector acting on the report took the view that the continued presence of the petitioner in the Block is a menance to peaceful life there and therefore ordered that the petitioner may be kept under suspension with immediate effect pending enquiry against him. 2. The petitioner denies the facts stated in Ext. P3 order and challenges this order on three grounds: (a) The District Collector has no power to suspend him under R.10 of the Kerala Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules as he is not any authority coming within that rule. (b) The Collector has not applied his mind to the various allegations levelled against the petitioner or made any preliminary enquiry on the truth of these allegations and then come to a prima facie conclusion for taking disciplinary proceedings. (c) Nor has he applied his mind to the question whether on these allegations it is necessary in the then prevailing circumstances and in public interest to suspend the petitioner. 3. (c) Nor has he applied his mind to the question whether on these allegations it is necessary in the then prevailing circumstances and in public interest to suspend the petitioner. 3. As regards the first ground it is contended by the petitioner that under R.10 only the appointing authority or the authority to which the appointing authority is subordinate or any authority specially empowered by the Government is that behalf can order suspension. Here the petitioner was appointed by the Director of Agriculture as per Ext. P2 order. He has not ordered the suspension. The Collector is not the appointing authority or the authority to which the Director of Agriculture is subordinate. Faced with this difficulty the Government Pleader appearing for the Respondent contended that the Collector has been specially authorised by the Government to suspend the officers like the petitioner who are working in a District and in support of it relied on Ext. RI read along with Exts. R2 and R3 and the counter-affidavit of the Collector filed in this case. I shall go into this contention in some detail. 4. Exts. RI is a copy of a Government Order No. LR(C)2-521/56/RD dated 18 21957 delegating more of its powers to the Board of Revenue and the Officers of the Revenue Department. Ext. R2 is copy of a Government Order No.19/62/DD dated 18-1-1962 by which the B.D.Os. were made the'immediate superior officers' of all the block staff including the extension officers belonging to the 'Subordinate Service' and the District Officers in the concerned departments were made the Higher Authorities for the purpose of R.13 of the Kerala (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules. Ext. R3 is copy of GOMS. No. 191/65/A & ROD dated 15-7-1965 by which Extension Officers for Animal Husbandry belonging to the 'State Service' working in blocks were also brought under the disciplinary powers of the Collectors for the purpose of R.13 of the Control and Appeal Rules. The latter two Exhibits, namely, Exts, R2 and R3 have no bearing on the question involved in this case. They do not evidence the appointment of the District Collector as the "Authority specifically empowered in this behalf" for the purposes of R.10 of the Kerala (Classification. Control & Appeal) Rules. 5. Then we shall look into Ext. RI. As stated earlier, it is a copy of a Government order No. LR(C)2-521/56/RD dated 18-2-1957. They do not evidence the appointment of the District Collector as the "Authority specifically empowered in this behalf" for the purposes of R.10 of the Kerala (Classification. Control & Appeal) Rules. 5. Then we shall look into Ext. RI. As stated earlier, it is a copy of a Government order No. LR(C)2-521/56/RD dated 18-2-1957. It relates to the question of delegation of more powers to the Board of Revenue and Officers of the Revenue Department Part A of it relates to the delegation of powers to the Board of Revenue to purchase articles worth not more than Rs. 500/- and to appoint contingent staff upto 3 months. Part B relates to the delegation of powers to the District Collector in respect of 13 items. Parts C, D and E relate to the delegation of powers to the Personal Assistant to the District Collector, Revenue Divisional Officers and Tahsildars respectively. The learned Government Pleader relied on item 13 in Part B relating to the powers of the Collectors which reads as follows: "(13) to suspend, dismiss, degrade, retire or accept the resignation of Non gazetted officers of the District subject to rules regarding the disciplinary action against Government servants." and contended that this amounts to a conferment of power as required by R.10 of Classification, Control and Appeal Rules. I cannot accept this contention as correct. The Government order is issued as a proceedings of the Government is the Revenue Department and relates to the delegation of powers on certain officers of the Board of Revenue and officers of the Revenue Department. The various items mentioned relate to the delegation of powers in respect of matters relating to Revenue Department and item 13 has also only that scope. "The non. gazetted officers of the District" mentioned in that item considered in the background of the other items mentioned in the Government Order mean only such officers of the Revenue Department in the District. This item does not satisfy the requirement of R.10 of the Kerala Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules. 6. The Government Pleader made a final attempt to show that the Collector has power to suspend the petitioner on the basis that the Collector has the administrative control of the Blocks and therefore has the power to suspend. Assuming this control exists, this will not be sufficient for the purpose of R.10. 6. The Government Pleader made a final attempt to show that the Collector has power to suspend the petitioner on the basis that the Collector has the administrative control of the Blocks and therefore has the power to suspend. Assuming this control exists, this will not be sufficient for the purpose of R.10. No other provision or rule was brought to my notice to sustain the action. In these circumstances, I hold that the 1st Respondent has no power to suspend the petitioner. 7. In the light of this conclusion it is really unnecessary to go into the other grounds raised by the petitioner. However, I shall state the points urged by the petitioner's counsel in this behalf. Relying on the observation in the decision of the Supreme Court in Government of India v. Tarak Nath (AIR. 1971 SC 823) and in P. R. Nayak v. Union of India (AIR. 1972 SC. 554) and the decision of this Court in O. P. No. 780 of 1972 the counsel urged that the preliminary enquiry, usually held before a departmental enquiry is launched, has not been conducted in this case. No facts have been collected in regard to the work and conduct of the petitioner. The petitioner was not informed of the visit of the Assistant Development Commissioner to the Block Office on 12-12-1972, the petitioner has not been questioned even informally about the allegations against him. The circumstance of the youth and inexperience in office procedure of the petitioner have been lost sight of Why a transfer to another place may not be sufficient to proceed with the disciplinary proceeding and why suspension alone is deemed necessary to proceed with the disciplinary proceedings are not stated. They all must be considered before an order of suspension is passed. The instructions contained in Para 15(2)(c) of the manual of instructions for disciplinary proceedings is seen not noticed by the Collector Here the District Collector is seen to have taken a decision to suspend him on the next day after the report, i. e., 13-12-72 without applying his mind properly on the question whether it is necessary in the public interest to suspend him. There is much to be said in favour of this contention. The decision to suspend is seen to have been taken rather hastily. There is much to be said in favour of this contention. The decision to suspend is seen to have been taken rather hastily. Why the Collector took the view that "the circumstances suggest that his continued presence m the Block is a menace to peaceful life there" is not clear. But m the light of my conclusion on the first ground I do not want to enter a definite conclusion on these grounds 2 and 3. In the result, I allow the original petition and quash Ext. P3 order of the 1st Respondent. No costs. Allowed.