JUDGMENT : ( 1. ) SHRI M. M. Kaushik, counsel for the petitioner. Heard counsel in the matter of admission. We have heard Shri Kaushik in support of the grievance made by the petitioner assailing the order dated 30-10-1987, passed by the Commissioner, Public instructions, M. P. , Bhopal. We quote the order :-"shri NATHURAM DHANGAR, PRACHARYA, SHASKIYA s. M. D. UCHHTAR MADHYAMIK VIDYALAYA, PORSA, JILLA morena KO HIGH SCHOOL/higher SECONDARY parikshavon EVAM CHHATRA KO PRAVESH DENE sambandhi ANIYAMITAVON KE KARAN TATKAL PRABHAV se NILAMBIT KIYA JATA HAL NILAMBAN AWADHI MAIN SHRI dhangar KA MUKHYALAYA UP SANCHALAK SHIKSHA, JILLA morena KE KARYALAYA MAIN RAHEGA. INHEN niyamanusar NIRVAHAK BHATTA PRAPT HOGA. " ( 2. ) A two-fold contention is pressed by Shri Kaushik in assailing the validity of the order. Firstly, counsel submits, the Commissioner not being the appointing authority had no power under the relevant rules, viz. , M. P. Civil Service (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966, to pass the order suspending the petitioner and, therefore, the order is without jurisdiction. However, on reading rule 9 (1) of the Rules aforesaid, we have no doubt that the contention is wholly meritless. The power to suspend a Government servant is given not only to the appointing authority but also to the disciplinary authority and any other authority empowered in that behalf by the Governor by general or special order. What cannot be disputed is that though the Commissioner was not the appointing authority of the petitioner, he was the disciplinary authority of the petitioner and, therefore, he had the jurisdiction to pass the impugned order. ( 3. ) SECONDLY, counsel contends, Rule 9 (1) (a) expressly uses the word "contemplated" and that word must also appear in impugned order of suspension. Indeed, the contention of the learned counsel is that if resort to this provision is taken, the authority must mention in the order that a "disciplinary proceeding is contemplated or is pending" against the person suspended. That no disciplinary proceeding is pending against the petitioner is clear, but it cannot be said that no disciplinary proceeding is contemplated against him. The mere non-mention of the word "contemplated", in our opinion, would not vitiate the order, because the facts mentioned in the order show that such a proceeding was in contemplation of the disciplinary authority. That no disciplinary proceeding is pending against the petitioner is clear, but it cannot be said that no disciplinary proceeding is contemplated against him. The mere non-mention of the word "contemplated", in our opinion, would not vitiate the order, because the facts mentioned in the order show that such a proceeding was in contemplation of the disciplinary authority. There was a serious charge against the petitioner of which mention was made in the very order of suspension. The purpose of mentioning in the order the charge in categorical terms indicated the contemplation of the disciplinary authority; it indicated that a disciplinary proceeding against the petitioner on the charge mentioned was in contemplation of the authority. ( 4. ) WE have no doubt that a reasonable interpretation must be placed on the provisions pressed in service in this case; it has to be read meaningfully and not pedantically. The relevant rule is in several parts, and the intent of clause (a) of sub-rule (1) of Rule 9 has to be gathered from other parts of the Rule. When a disciplinary proceeding is contemplated, as per sub-rule (2-a) it is expressly provided, in relation to clause (a) of sub-rule (1) of Rule 9, that a copy of the charges and imputations of misconduct or misbehaviour as also a list of documents and witnesses supporting the charges shall be served within a period of 45 days from the date of the order of suspension, on the delinquent Government servant. According to sub-rule (2-b) the suspension automatically terminates if the provisions of sub-rule (2-a) are not complied with. This in-built safeguard in the Rule against possible abuse of the power makes it clear as to what has to be recorded in the order passed under Rule 9 (1 ) (a) : there should be some charge mentioned in the order about which appropriate proceeding could be taken in accordance with Rule 2-A. In the instant case, that requirement is fully satisfied, ( 5. ) LEARNED counsel has placed reliance on the decision of a Division Bench of the Mysore High Court reported in 1969 SLR 882, Channamallappa vs. S. M. Kegur, Administrative Officer, District School Board and another. We need not say much about this decision, because the relevant rule under which action was taken in that case is not quoted. ) LEARNED counsel has placed reliance on the decision of a Division Bench of the Mysore High Court reported in 1969 SLR 882, Channamallappa vs. S. M. Kegur, Administrative Officer, District School Board and another. We need not say much about this decision, because the relevant rule under which action was taken in that case is not quoted. Indeed, the statutory provision which was the subject-matter of construction of their Lordships in that decision cannot be presumed to be the same as has come up before us under the Rules above-referred. That apart, in para 4 of the decision reported, is to be found the real ratio of the decision, which we quote: "the order as it reads made it clear that the Administrative Officer did not propose to commence any disciplinary proceeding against the petitioner in which event alone there could be an order of suspension. " It is, therefore, very clear that it is the language of the order to which primacy has to be accorded, and when the language of the order excludes the possibility of any disciplinary action being taken, then only there could be a valid grievance; and not otherwise. ( 6. ) FOR all the foregoing reasons, we find no merit in this petition and it is accordingly, dismissed summarily. Petition dismissed.