Judgment B. P. Singh, J. 1. We have heard counsel for the parties at length, and after hearing them this writ application is being disposed of at the admission stage itself. The respondents have filed a counter-affidavit, and the petitioners have also filed their rejoinder. 2. The petitioner was working as a Head Clerk in the office of the district Superintendent of Education, Nalanda at Biharsharif. He has impugned the orders (Annexure-3) passed by the Collector-cum-District Officer dated 8th September, 1992, placing htm under suspension, and directing the district Superintendent of Education, Nalanda, to submit a chargesheet in the prescribed form. The order further provides that the petitioners headquarters will be the office of the District Education Officer, Biharsharif, and that the petitioner will be entitled to subsistence allowance in accordance with the rules. The aforesaid order has been challenged on the sole ground that the same has been passed by an authority, who had no jurisdiction to pass the aforesaid order. It is the case of the petitioner that he does not come within the disciplinary jurisdiction of the Collector-cum-District Officer, Nalanda, and in accordance with the relevant rules, the Collector-cum-District Officer, nalanda, is not competent to pass an order of suspension. 3. Since the question raised is purely a question of law, it is not necessary to refer to the facts in detail. Only the salient facts may be noticed. According to the petitioner, while he was working as the Head-Clerk in the office of the District Superintendent of Education, Nalanda at Biharsharif, certain interested persons including the Bihar Arajptric Prarambhik Shikshak sangh, Nalanda, lodged a complaint before the Deputy development Commissioner, Nalanda, about the withdrawal of an amount from the general provident fund account. The Deputy Development Commissioner in turn sent the complaint to the District Education Officer for enquiry. The District education Officer after making an enquiry submitted his report to the Deputy development Commissionet. The said report was forwarded to the Collector-cum-District Officer, Nalanda, who by the impugned order placed the petitioner under suspension. The petitioner has submitted that the enquiry was not properly conducted and in any event there was hardly sufficient material to indict the petitioner It is not necessary for us to go into the merit of the controversy. 4. The said report was forwarded to the Collector-cum-District Officer, Nalanda, who by the impugned order placed the petitioner under suspension. The petitioner has submitted that the enquiry was not properly conducted and in any event there was hardly sufficient material to indict the petitioner It is not necessary for us to go into the merit of the controversy. 4. In the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents reliance has been placed upon a communication issued by the Chief Secretary to all commissioners-cum-Secretaries, Special Secretaries and heads of Department. The same has been annexed as Annexure-A to the counter-affidavit, and is dated 3rd March, 1981. It appears that the said communication was issued in connection with the Bihar Panchayat Samiti and Zila Parishad Act, 1961. Annexure-A contains instructions to the District Officers about the manner in which they should exercise the important powers vested in them. There is nothing in Annexure-A to justify the submission that the Collector-cum-District officer is the appointing or disciplinary authority in respect of employees working in the Department of Education. No doubt, the communication emphasises the important role of the District Officers and empowers them to take all necessary steps for the success of Panchayats and Zila Parishads. There is nothing in the said communication to persuade us to hold that the collector was empowered to exercise disciplinary control over employees working in the Department of Education, such as the petitioner. 5. On the other hand, the petitioner relies upon the Notification dated 13th August, 1974, noting the rules framed by the Governor under proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India. The rules are known as Education Ministerial Service Cadre, Appointment, Promotion and Transfer Rules 1974. They provide for creation of a central cadre and four divisional cadres. The controlling officer of the central cadre is the Director of Education, secondary Education, whereas the controlling officers of the remaining four cadres are the Regional Deputy Directors of Education of the four divisions. The district, Nalanda, falls within the Patna Division and therefore, the Regional Deputy Director of Education, Patna, Division is the controlling authority of the cadre. The rules also provide for the manner in which the appointments and promotions are to be made They provide for the constitution of Committees at the central as well as divisional levels which are empowered to take decisions in matters relating to appointment and promotion. The rules also provide for the manner in which the appointments and promotions are to be made They provide for the constitution of Committees at the central as well as divisional levels which are empowered to take decisions in matters relating to appointment and promotion. The Director of Education (Secondary Education) or any officer of the Directorate nominated by him is to be the Chairman of the Committee four Divisional Committees are headed by the respective Regional Deputy directors of Education. The other members of the Divisional Committees are the Principal of the Teachers Training Colleges named therein and three seniormost District Education Officers of the Division. 6. From the Rules it is quite clear that the cadre controlling authority is the Regional Deputy Director of Education. The authority vested with the power to appoint and promote is the Committee established under the rules under the Chairmanship of the Regional Deputy Director of Education obviously, therefore, the Collector-cum-District Officer is neither the cadre controlling authority nor the appointing authority. Nothing been brought to our notice to show that he has been vested with disciplinary powers On the other hand, under the provisions of the Bihar and Orissa Subordinate services (Disciplinary and Appeal) Rules, 1935, which apply to Class III and class IV employees, and which have been adopted by Notification dated 3rd july, 1963, published in exercise of powers conferred by the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India by the State Government, the powers of disciplinary authority are vested in the appointing authority. 7. In these circumstances, therefore, having regard to the provisions of the rules framed under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of india, the Collector-cum-District Officer has neither the power to suspend the petitioner nor does he have power to initiate a disciplinary proceeding against the petitioner. Such power is vested only in the committee constituted under the rules under the Chairmanship of the Regional Deputy Director of Education. 8. In this view of the matter, since the impugned order (Annexure-3) has been passed by the Collector-cum-District Officer, who is neither the appointing authority nor the disciplinary authority of the petitioner, the same is without jurisdiction and must be quashed. Accordingly, Annexure-3 is quashed. This will however, not prevent the competent authority from taking appropriate action against the petitioner, if so advised. This writ application is allowed. Writ Allowed.