JUDGMENT S. C. Mathur, J. - Inspite of the fact that notice of this petition was served upon the learned counsel for the State on 14.1.1988 he has not been able to obtain instructions. We, accordingly, proceed to decide this petition on the basis of averments made in the petition. 2. The petition is directed against the order dated 23rd September, 1987, Annexure7 whereby the petitioner has been placed under suspension. The petitioner's case is that his appointing authority is Regional Food Controller, while the impugned order of suspension has been passed by the Commissioner, Food and Civil Supplies, U.P., Lucknow. The petitioner was holding the post of Marketing Inspector. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon Rule 49A of the Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules for submitting that the delegation of power could be only in favour of Officer subordinate to the petitioner's appointing authority while the Commissioner, who has passed the impugned order is higher in rank. In 1986 (4) Lucknow Civil Decisions page 7 Tara Chandra v. Director of Horticulture & others, a Division Bench of this court has taken the view that an order of suspension an be made only by an authority specified in Rule 49A. In the absence of any counteraffidavit, the State counsel has not been able to substantiate that the Commissioner had the requisite authority to pass the impugned order. 4. In view of the above, the petition is allowed and the impugned order of suspension dated 23rd September, 1987, Annexure7 is, hereby, quashed. It will be open to the competent authority to pass fresh order in accordance with law. 5. A copy of this order shall be supplied to the learned counsel for the petitioner on payment of requisite charges within 15 days provided urgent application is made.