Judgment S.B.Sinha, J. 1. This writ application is directed against an order dated 20th March, 1991 passed by respondent No. 3 and as contained in Annexure 3 to the writ application whereby and whereunder a departmental proceeding has been initiated as against the petitioner and he has been placed under suspension. 2. The short question which arises in this application is as to whether respondent No. 3 has any jurisdiction to pass the order of suspension. 3. The petitioner was arrested on 19-3-1991 in connection with a complaint made against him that he had received an illegal gratification from one Jangli Bhuiyan in connection whereof a first information report was lodged which is contained in Annexure 1 to the writ application. 4. The petitioner was released on bail by this Court by an order dated 27-3-1991 in Crim. Misc. No. 994 of 1991 (R). Thereafter, the impugned order dated 20th March, 1991 was issued whereby and whereunder the petitioner was inter alia charge-sheeted for a misconduct which came within the purview of Clause 16.1.13 of the Certified Standing Order, that is, taking or giving or offering or asking bribe or any illegal gratification whatsoever indulging in corrupt practices. As indicated hereinbefore, by reason of the said order, the petitioner was also put under suspension pending enquiry and final decision in the matter. 5. According to the petitioner, respondent No. 3 is neither the disciplinary authority and as such he has no jurisdiction to pass the impugned order of suspension as against the petitioner. The petitioner has contended that the Director of Personnel being the employer, he alone has the jurisdiction to pass the impugned order of suspension. 6. At the admission stage, a counter-affidavit was filed on behalf of the respondents wherein it was inter alia contended that all appointments are made under the signature of General Manager and for disciplinary action, the agent of the Colliery is the competent authority as per the delegation of power and the provisions of the Standing Orders governing the service conditions of Wage Board employees are appliacable to the workmen. This Court by an order dated 19-7-1991 observed that no statement had been made in the said counter-affidavit as to whether the officer who had passed the impugned order of suspension was the agent of Ena Colliery or not. This Court by an order dated 19-7-1991 observed that no statement had been made in the said counter-affidavit as to whether the officer who had passed the impugned order of suspension was the agent of Ena Colliery or not. Thereafter a counter-affidavit was filed on behalf of the respondents on 14-8-1991 wherein a vague statement was made in paragraph 5 thereof that the Deputy Chief Mining Engineer is the agent of the Colliery. Along with the said counter-affidavit by way of Annexure, addendum to power delegated to Dy. CME (TRG) vide office order No. BCCL/EE/77/38756-826-A, dated 4th August, 1977 was enclosed. 7. It appears that by reason of the said delegation of power inter alia, full powers to take disciplinary action including termination, removal of service and other minor penalty in accordance with the prescribed rule/orders in respect of the Wage Board employees working under him have been delegated to the Deputy Chief Engineer. 8. The petitioners in reply to the aforementioned counter-affidavit stated that one Frasan Kumar Malakar is the agent of the Colliery in question. The said reply to the counter-affidavit was filed before this application was admitted for hearing. 9. By an order dated 23-8-1991, this Court while admitting the writ application gave liberty to the respondent to file additional counter-affidavit if any, but no additional counter-affidavit has been filed. 10. Mr. A.K. Sinha learned Counsel for the petitioner has raised a short contention in support of this application. 11. Learned Counsel firstly submitted that the Certified Standing Order, which is applicable in this case, has come into force with effect from 20th October, 1990. Clause 6.13 defines employer as meaning:- - The expression employer shall have the meaning assigned to it in Section 2(d) of that Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946 . He further drew my attention to Clause 27.2.1 of the Certified Standing Order. Learned Counsel submitted that in that view of the matter, the word employer will have the same meaning as contained in Sec. 2(b) of the Employment Standing Orders Act. 12. It was further submitted that even assuming that the contention of the respondent to the effect that the General Manager is the appointing authority, the impugned order of suspension having not been passed by him or any other person who came within the purview of the definition of employer, the impugned order cannot be sustained. 13. Mr. 12. It was further submitted that even assuming that the contention of the respondent to the effect that the General Manager is the appointing authority, the impugned order of suspension having not been passed by him or any other person who came within the purview of the definition of employer, the impugned order cannot be sustained. 13. Mr. M.M. Banerjee learned Counsel appearing for the respondents, however, submitted that as all Deputy Chief Mining Engineers are agents of the colliery, and this respondent No. 3 had the jurisdiction to pass the impugned order of suspension. 14. Sec. 2(d) of the Employment Standing Orders Act, 1946 defines employer to mean:- - 2(d) employer means the owner of an industrial establishment to which this Act for the time being applies, and includes (i) in a factor, any person named under Clause (f) of Sub-sec. (1) of Sec. 7 of the Factories Act, 1948, as manager of the factory; (ii) in any industrial establishment under the control of any department of any Government in India, the authority appointed by such Government in this behalf, or where no authority is so appointed, the head of the department; (iii) in any other industrial establishment, any person responsible to the owner for the supervision and control of the industrial establishment. 15. It is not in dispute that a person who does not come within the purview of the definition of employer being not an appointing authority or a disciplinary authority, he cannot be an employer under suspension. 16. It is true that by reason of delegation of power as contained in Annexure-A to the supplementary counter affidavit, the Deputy C.M.E. (TRG) have been delegated with full powers to take disciplinary action including termination, removal from service and other minor penalties, but, the said delegation of power, as indicated hereinbefore, was in accordance with the prescribed Rules/Standing Orders in respect of the Wage Board Employees working under him. It is not the case of the respondent that the Respondent No. 3 was responsible to the owner for supervision and control of the industrial establishment. An agent within the meaning of Mines Act 1952, is a person who is responsible to the owner for supervision and control of the mine. An agent appointed under the Mines Act is the representative of the owner in relation to a mine. 17. An agent within the meaning of Mines Act 1952, is a person who is responsible to the owner for supervision and control of the mine. An agent appointed under the Mines Act is the representative of the owner in relation to a mine. 17. As noticed hereinbefore, the new Standing Orders certified under the Industrial Employment Standing Orders Act and which is applicable in the case of workmen of respondent No. 1 has come into force with effect from 20th October, 1990. 18. As in terms of the said Certified Standing Order, the employer as defined in Clause 6.13 thereof has the same meaning as contained in Sec. 2(d) of the Industrial Employment Standing Orders Act, 1945, the purported delegation of powers as contained in Annexure-A to the supplementary counter affidavit must b: held to have lost its force. 19. The respondents despite opportunity having been given to them did not file any affidavit stating that respondent No. 3 was appointed as an agent of Ena colliery. Agents in respect of a colliery has to be appointed in terms of Sec. 2(c) of the Mines Act, 1952 . The statements made in the counter affidavit of the respondents to the effect that Deputy Chief Mining Engineers are agents cannot ex facie be accepted inasmuch as there are procedures for appointment of an agent and appointment of any person as an agent has to be intimated to the Directorate General of Mines Safety. 20. As noticed hereinbefore, the petitioner, in reply to the counter affidavit, categorically stated that one Prasan Kumar Malakar was the agent of the colliery. This statement has not been controverted by the respondents. 21. In this view of the matter, I have no other option but to hold that as the respondents have failed to show that respondent No. 3 was agent of the Ena colliery and, thus, is an employer within the meaning of Clause 6.13 of the Certified Standing Order and was thus authorised to pass the order of suspension. 22. In the result, this application is allowed and the impugned order of suspension is quashed. However, it is made clear that any competent authority may pass a suitable order of suspension and initiate a disciplinary proceeding as against the petitioner. There will be no order as to costs.