HARINATH TILHARI, J. ( 1 ) BY this Petition the petitioner has sought quashing of the impugned order of suspension bearing No. /commissioner/cv 191/94-95 dated 3. 5. 1994 Annexure-B to the Writ Petition. The petitioner has further sought the issuance of the Writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondents to treat the petitioner as having been continued in service unaffected by the impugned order of suspension and to pay him the salary and allowances and all consequential benefits flowing therefrom; and the petitioner has also claimed a relief to the effect that the Court may pass such other orders as the Court deems fit in the circumstances of the case. ( 2 ) THE facts of the case in a nut shell are: as per the allegations made in the Writ Petition and the Annexures thereto that the petitioner was working as a I Division Assistant in the Bangalore Development authority since his appointment. According to the petitioner's case, during the year 1990 the then First Division Assistant and the superintendent as also the Deputy Secretary of the Authority had issued Possession Certificate relating to site No. 563 of the B. T. M. Layout to one Smt. Parvathi by its Certificate vide Annexure-A. This certificate was issued to a wrong person who claimed to be one Smt. Parvathi by putting false L. T. M. Mark in the application as also in the certificate. ( 3 ) LATER on according to the petitioner's case it transpired that the Possession Certificate had been given to a wrong person by the then officials of the Authority and a renewal of request application had been made by Smt Parvathi who was an illiterate and at the instance of the Authority, the Possession Certificate was given to real Parvathi in the year 1994. The facts that the Possession Certificate was issued to a wrong person, the Deputy Secretary of the Bangalore development Authority having come to know of it addressed a letter to the first respondent - The Commissioner, Bangalore Development authority, Bangalore for taking suitable action against the persons responsible i. e. , the First Division Assistant and the other officials responsible for issuing the Certificate to a wrong person are not in dispute. According to the petitioner, the opposite party issued an order of suspension dated 3. 5. 1994 suspending the petitioner. According to the petitioner, the opposite party issued an order of suspension dated 3. 5. 1994 suspending the petitioner. The petitioner has further averred in the Petition that he was not working in the said pranch at the relevant point of time and he had not received the Certificate inspite of that he has been subjected to an order of suspension and to support the case of the petitioner, the petitioner has annexed certain Orders dated 20th May 1992 and 8. 5. 1992 as per Annexures C and D. The petitioner's case is that he has been totally unconnected to that incident and that he is not liable in respect thereof and no enquiry need be conducted and that he was innocent of the matter. Hence the petitioner has preferred the present Writ petition challenging the suspension order dated 3. 5. 1994 on the ground that the suspension order is illegal. ( 4 ) THE learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that there was no question of holding enquiry or passing suspension order and the suspension order has been illegally passed in regard to this instance. The learned Counsel for the petitioner Sri Ranganath Jois further submitted that as mentioned in Ground No. 3 petitioner has been drawing a salary higher than Rs. 1,500/- and the learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the Commissioner is the Authority competent to suspend only the employees who draw monthly salary not exceeding a sum of Rs. 1500/ -. So his contention is that the commissioner-respondent No. 1 is not competent to pass the suspension order and as such according to the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner the suspension order has been passed without authority and jurisdiction and as such the said order is void, illegal and inoperative and deserves to be quashed issuing an order of Writ of Certiorari by this Court under Article 226 of the constitution. ( 5 ) ON behalf of the opposite parties appearance has been put and arguments have been advanced by Smt. Shoba Patil. Smt. Patil submitted that pending enquiry of the case delinquent employees or official can be suspended. ( 5 ) ON behalf of the opposite parties appearance has been put and arguments have been advanced by Smt. Shoba Patil. Smt. Patil submitted that pending enquiry of the case delinquent employees or official can be suspended. She submits that for issuance of a certificate to a wrong person or not will be a subject matter of the enquiry before the disciplinary authority and if that petitioner's case is established the petitioner may be exonerated of the charge in the case, either it be Criminal or in the Departmental proceedings, and the Bangalore Development Authority may restore back the petitioner to the position and he may be entitled to get all the benefits She submitted, the suspension is not an order of punishment. ( 6 ) DEALING with the contention of the petitioner as to the competency of the Commissioner to pass the suspension order, raised by Sri Ranganath Jois, the Counsel for respondents 1 and 2 smt. Shoba Patil contended that no doubt under Section 50 ordinarily the Commissioner may pass the suspension order in respect of employees getting monthly salary of Rs. 1,5007- but there is a provision i. e. , Section 62 of the Karnataka Act No. 12/1976 (Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976) whereunder, the authority may by Notification issued, direct that any power exercisable by it under this Act, except the power to make the Regulations, may also be exercised by the Commissioner or (such whole time member or officer) of the Authority as may be specified in the Notification subject to such restriction and conditions as may be specified therein. She further submitted that the power of the Authority to suspend the employees getting monthly salary of more than Rs. 1. 500/- has been delegated by the Commissioner to the Authority and that delegation has been made on 21. 3. 1990. She has invited my attention to certain observations made in the Division Bench Judgment of this Court in writ Appeal No. 1949/1993 in the case of BASAVALINGAPPA vs bangalore DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY* and on that basis the learned Counsel for the opposite party submitted that when once the delegation has been made in favour of the Commissioner empowering him to exercise the power to suspend the employees of the Corporation getting a monthly salary of more than Rs. 1,500/-, the order of suspension contained in Annexure-B cannot be said to be one passed by a person who is not competent She submitted that commissioner has been competent to pass the order. The learned counsel further invited my attention to Section 6 of Karnataka Act No. 17 of 1994 whereby Section 50 of the Principal Act has been amended. ( 7 ) I have applied my mind to the contentions made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the opposite party and to the record of the case. As regard the first contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner a bare reading of the order of suspension which I got translated in English by the learned Counsel and taken down the english version as communicated by the Counsel in the open Court it per se reveals that the suspension order in the present case is not a punitive order. Hence the order of suspension is pending enquiry. The material portion thereof speaks as per English translation that "i hereby suspend Sri K. J. Ningegowda the First Division Assistant pending enquiry against him. " This per se shows that the order of suspension in the present case is not a punitive order at all. It is pending enquiry and the Authority is permitted to suspend an , employee pending enquiry and a suspension of the order can. be passed by the Authority. There can be no doubt about it. ( 8 ) AS regards the second contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the order as impugned has been, passed by a person not competent to pass. be passed by the Authority. There can be no doubt about it. ( 8 ) AS regards the second contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the order as impugned has been, passed by a person not competent to pass. Section 50 (1) of the Act reads thus "subject to the provisions of the regulations framed under section" 70 and of the schedule for the time being in force sanctioned by the Government under Section 49 of the power of appointing, promoting, suspending, dismissing, fining, reducing or granting leave to the Officers and servants of the Authority (not being Officers in Government service lent to the authority) shall be exercised by the (Commissioner) in the case of Officers and servants whose monthly salary does not exceed one hundred and fifty rupees and in every other case by the authority: provided that in the case of Officers in government service lent to the authority the (Commissioner) may exercise the powers of sanctioning, withholding, increments fining or suspending shall report the fact to the Head of the Department of Government to which such Officer belongs. ( 9 ) I may also refer here to Section 62 of the Act which deals with circumstance under which the power of the Authority or power exercisable by the Authority can be delegated. Section 62 of the Act reads thus:"the authority may, by notification direct that any power exercisable by it under this Act except the power to make regulations may also be exercised by the (Commissioner) or (such whole time member or officer) of the authority as may be specified in the notification subject to such restriction and condition as may be specified therein. " ( 10 ) A perusal of these two Sections per se shows that firstly that an employee can be suspended and power to suspend vests in commissioner by Provision 50 of the Act in respect of the employees, getting less than Rs. 1,500/ -. While in the case of others it vests in. the authority itself. " ( 10 ) A perusal of these two Sections per se shows that firstly that an employee can be suspended and power to suspend vests in commissioner by Provision 50 of the Act in respect of the employees, getting less than Rs. 1,500/ -. While in the case of others it vests in. the authority itself. But by virtue of Section 62 of the Act the Authority is competent to delegate any of the powers exercisable by it except the power to make Regulations to the Commissioner or to a whole time member of the Authority and this power shall become exercisable and may be exercised by the Commissioner or the Member and the said powers are exercisable subject to certain conditions and restrictions. Thus the powers are vested subject to those conditions and restrictions. In the present Case as it appears from the perusal of the judgment dated 19. 10. 1993 delivered in W. A. No. 1949/1993 that under the exercising of power under Section 62 of the Act the authority has delegated its power to suspend an employee or officer getting or drawing a salary of Rs. 1. 500/ -. The delegation has been made on 21. 3. 1990 by the Resolution No. 1803 and the learned counsel for the respondent submits that the same has been notified but said Notification is not on record. So far the present delegation is lot established, but without recording any finding generally I further proceed as hereinafter. ( 11 ) THE learned Counsel for the respondents further brought to he notice of this Court the amendment introduced by Section 6 of the act No. 17 of 1994 published in the Gazette dated 31. 3. 1994, in section 50 of the Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976. ( 12 ) IN the light of the allegations of para-5 of the statement of objections, it has been submitted by Smt. Shoba Patil, Counsel for the opposite party that, the Commissioner has been competent to pass the orders of suspension. As regards this contention, it has to be taken note of that the orders of suspension had been passed on 3rd may 1994. The amending Act, by which Section 50 of the Bangalore development Authority Act has been amended, prospectively came nto operation on 31st March, 1994. As regards this contention, it has to be taken note of that the orders of suspension had been passed on 3rd may 1994. The amending Act, by which Section 50 of the Bangalore development Authority Act has been amended, prospectively came nto operation on 31st March, 1994. By sub-section (1) of Section 6 of he Karnataka Act No. 17 of 1994, Section 50 of Principal Act has been amended and it provides as under:"amendment of Section 50 : In Section 50 of the Principal act;. (i) in "sub-section (1), for the words "whose monthly salary does not exceed one thousand and five hundred rupees" the words "who are not above the rank of Group 'b1 Officer of the state Civil Services" shall be substituted : (ii) for the proviso, the following proviso shall be substituted, namely: "provided that, in the case of Officers in Government service lent to the Authority - (i) who are not above the rank of Group 'a1 Junior scale, the commissioner may exercise the powers of sanctioning or withholding increment, fining or suspending or granting leave to the officers and shall report the fact to the Head of the department of Government to which such officers belong; (ii) who are above the rank of Group A Junior Scale, the commissioner may exercise the powers of granting leave and making incharge arrangement. " ( 13 ) BY Section 6 of Act No. 17 of 1994, it has been provided that the powers referred to in Section 50 of principal Act including that of suspending an Officer or a Servant of the Corporation, who is not above the rank of Group 'b' Officers in the State Civil Services shall be exercised and be exercisable by the Commissioner. ( 14 ) IT is the case of the opposite party that the petitioner belongs to the Category of 'c' Class employees of the Convocation. In otherwords his position was equivalent to that of 'c' Class employees of the State Government. ( 15 ) THE learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted he does not admit that petitioner was a 'c1 Class employee. In otherwords his position was equivalent to that of 'c' Class employees of the State Government. ( 15 ) THE learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted he does not admit that petitioner was a 'c1 Class employee. The petitioner's learned Counsel on being enquired whether the petitioner belonged to the category of Officers or employees above Group 'b' Officers of state Civil Services or not, Sri Ranganath Jois, learned Counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner is not an employee who can be termed to be one above the rank of Group 'b1 Officers or employees of the State Civil Services. In this view of the matter, whether the petitioner is a Class 'c' employee or a Class 'b' employee, it is immaterial for the purpose of the Decision of this case because, until and unless an employee of a grade higher or above 'b' grade, the power to suspend vests in the Commissioner, in view of amended Section 50 of the Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976 on the date the suspension order dated 3. 5. 1994 was passed. ( 16 ) IN this view of the matter, I am of the opinion that the second contention made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner challenging the suspension order on the ground that the order of suspension has been passed by an authority not competent is without any substance or force. As regards the merits of the matter whether he was concerned or not with the episode involved, it is not for this Court to examine it or to express any opinion thereon as the matter may be pending for disciplinary proceedings and it may be pending for criminal investigation at the stage of investigation and it is for the criminal Court or for the competent Disciplinary Authority to decide. ( 17 ) THUS, having considered the material on record and the contentions of the learned Counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that this Writ Petition has got no force. The Petition is hereby dismissed. Costs to be borne by the parties themselves. --- *** --- .