JUDGMENT S.S. Ahmad, J. - This petition was filed on 1771985 and on that date the following order was passed : "In this writ petition the order of suspension has been Challenged on the ground that the petitioner was appointed by the District Horticulture Officer, Barabanki but he has been suspended by the Deputy Director of Horticulture. Under Rule 49A of the U. P. Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules an employee can placed under suspension either by the appointing authority or by an officer subordinate to the appointing authority to whom powers are delegated. List this petition for orders/hearing on 25th July, 1985 to enable the learned Standing Counsel to obtain instructions whether the Deputy Director had any jurisdiction at all to suspend the petitioner. It is clarified that the writ petition is likely to be disposed of finally on that date." 'The petition was listed on 2571985 and it was directed to be put up on 2971985. On 2971985 it was directed to come up the next day. On 3071985 it was directed to be listed in the next week. When the petition was taken up today it was stated by the State counsel that no instructions have been given to him. 2. As indicated earlier in our order dated 1771985, we proceed to hear and dispose of the petition finally. The petitioner was appointed as Junior Clerk by the District Horticulture Officer by his order dated 491975 of which a copy has been filed as Annexure 1 to the petition. The petitioner has been suspended by the order dated 861985 passed by the Deputy Director of Horticulture. A copy of this order is Annexure 2 to the writ petition. It is this order which has been challenged in the present writ petition on the grounds, inter alia, that the Deputy Director of Horticulture had no jurisdiction to suspend the petitioner as he was neither his appointing authority nor was he an officer subordinate to the appointing authority to whom the powers were delegated by the appointing authority. It is this order which has been challenged in the present writ petition on the grounds, inter alia, that the Deputy Director of Horticulture had no jurisdiction to suspend the petitioner as he was neither his appointing authority nor was he an officer subordinate to the appointing authority to whom the powers were delegated by the appointing authority. Relevant portion of Rule 1A of the Punishment and Appeal Rules for Subordinate Services, U. P. which, incidentally, is identical to the provisions of Rule 49A of the Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, is as under : "lA(1) A Government servant against whose conduct an inquiry is contemplated or is proceeding may be placed under suspension, pending the conclusion of the inquiry, in the discretion of the appointing authority : Provided that in the case of any Government Servant, or class of government servants, belonging to a State service, the appointing authority may delegate its power under this subrule to the next lower authority : Provided further that any other authority empowered by the Governor by general or special order in this behalf, may place a Government servant under suspension under this subrule." 3. A perusal of the provisions quoted above will indicate that the order of suspension can be passed either by the appointing authority or by an officer to whom the powers are delegated by the appointing authority. That officer to whom the power can be delegated should, as required by the Rule, be an officer subordinate to the appointing authority. Any other authority empowered by the Governor by general or special order can also place the Government servant under suspension. 4. The Deputy Director of Horticulture is not an officer subordinate to the District Horticulture Officer who is the appointing authority of the petitioner. There is nothing on .record to indicate that the District Horticulture Officer has delegated his powers to the Deputy Director of Horticulture which would also be otherwise illegal as the delegation can be made in favour of an officer who is next below in rank to the appointing authority. There is also nothing on the record to indicate that the Deputy Director of Horticulture was specially empowered by the Governor under a general or special order to suspend the Government servants working under him. 5. There is also nothing on the record to indicate that the Deputy Director of Horticulture was specially empowered by the Governor under a general or special order to suspend the Government servants working under him. 5. In view of the above, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order of suspension contained in Annexure 2 is quashed but 'with no orders as to costs, with the further observation that it will be open to the appropriate authority to pass a fresh order of suspension. (Petition allowed)