Judgment :- Six District Supply Officers working in various districts have been placed under suspension by Ext. P1 order da ted 4-2-93 passed by the Directorof Civil Supplies(for short the Director), This order is purported to have been passed under rule 10(2) of the Kerala Civil Services (Classification, Control and appeal) Rules, 1960 (for short the rules). Petitioners challenge the impugned order. 2. The main attack against Ext. P1 suspension order is that the Director, who passed the impugned order has no authority under Rule 10 of the Rules. It is contended that the Director is not empowered by the Government under Rule 10 of the Rules. 3. The Director has filed a counter-affidavit contending that he has been empowered under Rule 10(2) of the Rules to pass an order of suspension against the District Supply Officers. Rule 10(1) reads: "10. Suspension. - (1) The appointing authority or any authority to which it is subordinate or any other authority empowered by the Government in that behalf may at any time place a Government servant under suspension". Rule 10(2) reads: "Where the order of suspension is made by an authority lower than the appointing authority, such authority shall forthwith report to the Appointing Authority, the circumstances in which the order was made". A plain reading of Rule 10(1) shows that cither the appointing authority or arry authority superior to the appointing authority or any other authority empowered by the Government alone can place a Government servant under suspension. In the instant case as regards the District Supply Officers admittedly the Government is the appointing authority. So there cannot be any superior authority by whom the powers under S.10(1) could be exercised. So the next question is whether there is any authority specifically empowered by the Government under Rule 10(1) of the Rules. In the counter affidavit filed by the Director it is not specifically mentioned that he has been empowered by the Government to place District Supply Officer under suspension. 4. The learned Addl. Advocate General contended that the Director being an authority lower than the appointing authority under Rule 10(2) of the Rules, he has got power to suspend the District Supply Officers and the only condition precedent is that he shall forthwith report the matter to the appointing authority. I do not think that Rule 10(2) gives any such power to the Director. I do not think that Rule 10(2) gives any such power to the Director. Rule 10(2) is only procedural in nature and when an authority lower than the appointing authority by virtue of hi:; power under Rule 10(1) exercised that power, he should forthwith report the matter to the appointing authority. It was contended that in Rule 10(2) the words "empowered authority" are not mentioned and therefore the power could be exercised by any authority lower than the appointing authority. I am unable to accept this contention. Rule 10 is a safeguard given to the Government servants that they shall not be placed under suspension by incompetent authorities. So the suspension order could only be passed either by the appointing authority or authority superior to the appointing authority or by any other authority specially empowered by the Government. Any other interpretation given to Rule 10(1) would only drive a coach and horse through the very protection given to governments various against illegal suspension. Going by the Rules the Directorof Civil Supplies had no authority to pass Ext. P1 order. mnjhuy76 The impugned order has been passed pending enquiry. The counsel for the petitioners also brought to my notice that the Director is not the Disciplinary Authority in respect of the District Supply Officers. So the Disciplinary proceedings also could not have been initiated against these petitioners by the Director. 6. Detailed contentions have been raised in all these original petitions regarding the factual situation leading to the suspension and it is contended that there were no reasons or circumstances warranting the suspension of these petitioners. These facts are denied by the Director in the counter-statement. The file leading to the Suspension of these officers has also been produced before me. I am not going into such factual matters, as it is not necessary for the purpose of these petitions. V-assjs&issscs. Asassa. 7. The learned Addl. Advocate General contended that the petitioners could have challenged the impugned order before the Government under Rule 22 of the Rules and they need not have invoked the extra-ordinary jurisdiction of this Court. It may he noticed that the impugned order has been passed by the Director who has no source of power to pass such an order. So the impugned order is non est. Under that circumstance the Court can interfere with such orders under the extra-ordinarypowers of judicial review. It may he noticed that the impugned order has been passed by the Director who has no source of power to pass such an order. So the impugned order is non est. Under that circumstance the Court can interfere with such orders under the extra-ordinarypowers of judicial review. The position is well settled by series of decisions of the Supreme Court. (See Tata E and Co. v. Asst. Commr., Taxes (AIR 1967 SC 1401) and Calcutta Discount Co. v. IT. Officer (AIR 1961. SC 372). 8. As the Director did not have the power to pass the suspension order, I set aside the same and it is made clear that the setting aside of the impugned order will not stand in the way of taking any otherappropriatesteps by the Government against these officers for the mis-conduct, if any, committed by them. The original petitions are allowed. No costs.