JUDGMENT S.D. Agarwala, J. - Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing counsel. 2. Since the impugned order is challenged on a pure question of law and counter and rejoinder - affidavit have been filed, we are disposing of the petition finally at this stage. 3. The petitioner has challenged the suspension order passed against him on 22nd March, 1988 on the ground that the Deputy Cane Commissioner, Meerut has no jurisdiction to pass the same. In the counter - affidavit, in paragraph 8, it has been stated by the order dated 9th May, 1973, the powers of the Cane Commissioner who was the appointing authority of the petitioner have been delegated to the Deputy Cane Commissioner. It is not disputed that the original appointing authority of the petitioner was the Cane Commissioner. 4. In Krishna Kumar v. Divisional Assistant Electrical Engineer, AIR 1979 SC 1912 , the Honble Supreme Court has taken the view that where subsequent authorisation is made in regard to making appointment to the post held by a person, the said subsequent authorisation cannot confer power on the sub - ordinate authority to remove the person concerned, the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in this case fuly applies to the facts of the present case. 5. As stated above, the petitioner was appointed by the Cane Commissioner in the year 1962. The authorisation is subsequent to the year 1962 i. e. in the year 1973. Consequently, the Deputy Cane Commissioner could not have passed the suspension order against the petitioner. 6. In the result, we quash the suspension order dated 22nd March, 1988. We, however, further make it clear that it will be open to the appointing authority, namely, the Cane Commissioner to pass fresh order of suspension, if so necessary on the facts of the case. We further hope and trust that if an order of suspension is passed against the petitioner, the departmental enquiry will be conducted against the petitioner expeditiously. 7. With the above observations, the petition is disposed of.