JUDGMENT B D. Agarwal, J. - The petitioner is employed as Officer Assistant Grade II in the office of the Regional Manager, U.P. State Road Transport Corporation, Bareilly Region, Bareilly (hereinafter referred to as the 'Corporation'). Upon certain complaints received against him a charge-sheet dated January 10, 1983, was served upon the petitioner and pending enquiry at this stage he was placed under suspension by order dated April 2, 1984, passed by the Regional Manager, Moradabad Range. The petitioner has approached this Court under article 226 of the Constitution seeking a writ of certiorari to quash this order on ground that the officer, who made the same is not competent in this behalf. 2. It is not in disputed that the petitioner is employed in the Bareilly Range, Bareilly, as Office Assistant Grade II in the office of the one Regional Manager of the Corporation. The appointing authority is the Regional Manager, Bareilly, in accordance with the Rule 67 of the U P. State Road Transport Corporation Employees (Other Than Officers) Service Rules, 1981, framed under the Road Transport Corporation Act, 1950, appointing authority is given the power to place an employee such as the petitioner under suspension pending enquiry. By order dated June 24, 1973, made by the managing Director of the Corporation the then Regional Manager, Bareilly (R.S. Dixit) was transferred to Lucknow as the Regional Manager (Routes). In the absence of a substitute appointed in his place at Bareilly, the Managing Director made an order dated December 3, 1983, to the effect that the Regional Manager, Moradabad, shall also be incharge of the work of the Regional Manager, Bareilly Region, in the matter of appointment, disciplinary control and the appeals. The Regional Manager, Moradabad Range (S.C. Dwivedi) was, however, transferred by order dated February 10, 1984, passed by the Managing Director to Lucknow. The contention of Sri G.N. Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner, before us on the basis of these facts is that on April, 2, 1984, when the impugned order of suspension (Annexure-4) to the writ petition) was made, the officer was passed the same, namely, S.C. Dwivedi did not retain charge the affairs of Bareilly Region and in consequence he was incompetent to make this order. 3. 3. In view of Rule 67 referred to above the order of interim suspension could be passed by the appointing authority, i.e., the Regional Manager, Bareilly Range or an officer incharge in this behalf. Sri S.K. Sharma, learned counsel for the Corporation, points that on December 3, 1983, the Regional Manager, Moradabad Range had been placed incharge of these affairs relating to Bareilly Range also vide Annexure-CA-2. This, no doubt' is true. But the matter does not rest at that because as mentioned above the Regional Manager, Moradabad Range (S.C. Dwivedi) was transferred to Lucknow under order dated February 10, 1984, vide Annexure-5 to the supplementary-affidavit filed by the petitioner. The significant fact is that under order dated December 3, 1983, the Regional Manager, Moradabad, was by designation to be incharge of these affairs relating to Bareilly Region. S.C. Dwivedi in other words was not a person designate in this respect. His capacity as Regional Manager, Moradabad, obviously came to an end upon his transfer to Lucknow under order dated February 10, 1984. It is argued by Sri S.K. Sharma for the Corporation that in the order dated February 10, 1984, there is a recital by the Managing Director that till further orders S.C. Dwivedi shall also look to the work pertaining to Moradabad Range. On this footing the contention put forward is that it should be deemed that S.C. Dwivedi remained entitled not withstanding his transfer to Lucknow to look to the affairs of Bareilly Range also, we are unable to agree, the reason being that the Regional Manager, Moradabad, was by designation to be incharge of these affairs of the Bareilly Range and since S.C. Dwivedi was no longer Regional Manager, Moradabad, he could not ipso facto be treated as incharge of those affairs of the Bareilly Range. In the order dated February 10, 1984, there is conspicuous absence of mention in regard to affairs of the Bareilly Range. The additional charge conferred thereunder is in relation to Moradabad Range alone. The Regional Manager, Lucknow, to put this in other words, was put incharge of the affairs of the Moradabad Range but, not the Bareilly Range. In the order dated February 10, 1984, there is conspicuous absence of mention in regard to affairs of the Bareilly Range. The additional charge conferred thereunder is in relation to Moradabad Range alone. The Regional Manager, Lucknow, to put this in other words, was put incharge of the affairs of the Moradabad Range but, not the Bareilly Range. Since S.C. Dwivedi was on longer incharge of the affairs of the Bareilly Range subsequent to February 10, 1984, it cannot be claimed that he remained competent in view of Rule 67 to make the order of suspension with respect to the petitioner. 4. For the petitioner the learned counsel raised an additional ground to the effect that on April 2, 1984, there was an order passed by the Managing Director whereby the Regional Manager, Dehra Dun Range was placed incharge of the disciplinary matters pertaining to the Moradabad Range and it was further provided that these affairs pertaining to the Bareilly Range shall be looked after by the Regional Manager, Pithoragarh Range, vide Annexure CA-4. It is a coincidence that these order happened to be made on April 2, 1984, itself the dated when the impugned order of suspension was passed. The contention for the petitioner is that S.C. Dwivedi be presumed to have come to know of this order of transfer dated April 2, 1984, and on that account also he was incompetent to place the petitioner under suspension. The charge in pursuance of this order was handed over on April 3, 1984, vide Annexure-6 to the supplementary affidavit. There is no sound basis for raising presumption that S.C. Dwivedi, Regional Manager, may have come to know of the order dated April 2, 1984, on that day itself, nor needs this be probed into further in view of our opinion that the order impugned fails on the first ground, namely, that S C. Dwivedi no longer retained the charge of Bareilly Range when the order in dispute dated April, 8, 1984, was made. 5. For the discussion made in the above, the petition succeeds and is allowed accordingly. The impugned order dated April 2, 1984 (Annexure-4) to the writ petition is quashed. In the circumstances of the case there will be no order as to costs.