Judgment S.B.Sinha, J. 1. The petitioner in this application has questioned an order dated 29-6-1993 passed by the Commissioner-cum-Special Secretary, Finance (Commercial Taxes) Department, whereby and whereunder he was placed under suspension for alleged disobedience to the order of transfer and posting. 2. The petitioner has contended that the impugned order as contained in Annexure 1 to the writ application is without jurisdiction inasmuch as he being a Class I Officer he could have been placed under suspension only by the Governor of Bihar who was his appointing authority in terms of Rule 49-A(1) of Bihar Civil Service (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1930. 3. The State has however, filed a counter-affidavit and a supplementary affidavit wherein it has been contended that the appointing authority of the members of the Bihar Finance Service is the State Government. 4. It is stated that in terms of Article 166 (2) of the Constitution of India all orders passed by the State Government can be signed or authenticated by the Secretary, Deputy Secretary, Under Secretary and Assistant Secretary of the concerned Department and as the impugned order of suspension had been issued under the signature of Commissioner of Commercial Taxes and as he is also the Special Secretary of the said Department of the State of Bihar, the same is legal and valid. 5. in the supplementary counter-affidavit it has further been stated that the proposal for suspension was placed before the Minister-in-charge and after an order was passed by him in the me, the same was sent to the Chief Minister through Chief Secretary who also approved the said proposal; whereafter the impugned order has been passed, 6. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has raised a short question in support of this application. The learned Counsel submitted that Rule 49-A of the Bihar Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules being a rule framed under the proviso appended to Article 309 of the Constitution of India, the same shall prevail over the Rules of Executive Business. 7. According to the learned Counsel the appointing authority being the State Government, the rile should have been placed before the Council of Ministers and only on its approval, the impugned order could be passed. 7. According to the learned Counsel the appointing authority being the State Government, the rile should have been placed before the Council of Ministers and only on its approval, the impugned order could be passed. He further submitted that the impugned order having not been issued under the orders of the Governor of Bihar, the same must be held to be wholly illegal and without jurisdiction. The learned Counsel in support of his aforementioned contention has relied upon a decision of this Court in Kamta Prasad Singh V/s. State of Bihar Sported in 1987 PLJR 1042. 8. Mr. Rafat Alam, the learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the State, on the other hand, submitted that it cannot be said that all orders which are required to be passed by the State Government must be placed before the Council of Ministers. It has also been submitted that the provisions of Article 166 of the Constitution of India being directory in nature, the impugned order cannot be said to be invalid only because, the same has not been issued under the order of the Governor of Bihar. Reliance in this connection has been placed upon Chitralekha V/s. State of Mysore . 9. It is not denied that the State Government is the appointing authority of the petitioner. It is not disputed that in terms of Rules of Executive Business framed by the Government under Article 166 of the Constitution of India, the Special Secretary has also been authorised to sign any documents, The State of Bihar further had issued a notification bearing No. A-933 dated 25th January, 1952 whereby and whereunder inter alia the Secretary, Joint Secretary, Deputy Secretary, Assistant Secretary etc. have been authorised to sign or authenticate the documents issued by the State of Bihar. 10. Rule 32(ka) of the Rules of Executive Business inter alia provides that after the matters enumerated therein are considered by the Minister-in-charge, the same may be placed before the Chief Minister through any of the officers named therein. have been authorised to sign or authenticate the documents issued by the State of Bihar. 10. Rule 32(ka) of the Rules of Executive Business inter alia provides that after the matters enumerated therein are considered by the Minister-in-charge, the same may be placed before the Chief Minister through any of the officers named therein. Sub-clause VII of Rule 32(ka) of the aforementioned Rules refer to a matter of suspension of any Officer belonging to any State service, in this view of the matter, there cannot be any doubt that as the matter relating to the proposal of suspension of the petitioner was placed before the Minister-in-charge, and upon approval thereof by the said authority, toe file was placed before the Chief Minister through the Chief Secretary, the relevant provisions of Rules of Executive Business have fully been complied with. 11. In Kamla Prasad Singh V/s. State of Bihar reported in 1987 PLJR 1042 a Division Bench of this Court was considering a case where the order of suspension was passed by the Commissioner of a Division against a Block Development Officer who belonged to Bihar Agricultural Service Class II. In that situation it was held that the Commissioner of a Division having not been delegated with the powers to exercise the statutory function of suspension he could not have placed the petitioner thereof under suspension. The Division Bench held: It is now well established that in absence of a power of delegation in a statutory provision, the ultimate power required to be exercised by a particular officer cannot be delegated. A functionary who has to decide an administrative matter or the nature involved in the case can obtain the material on which he is to act in such manner as may be feasible and convenient but he cannot delegate the ultimate responsibility for the exercise of such power except where the law specifically so provides. Rule 49-A does not contemplate any person other than those designated to place a Government servant under suspension. It does not envisage further delegation of power by the person authorised to take action. Our attention has been drawn to a large number of cases in this connection but a reference to the decision of the Supreme Court in Pradyat Kumar Bose V/s. the Hon ble Chief Justice of Calcutta High Court -- and A.K. Roy V/s. State of Punjab -- is sufficient for the purpose. Our attention has been drawn to a large number of cases in this connection but a reference to the decision of the Supreme Court in Pradyat Kumar Bose V/s. the Hon ble Chief Justice of Calcutta High Court -- and A.K. Roy V/s. State of Punjab -- is sufficient for the purpose. In this connection another well-known rule of construction to be remembered is where a power is given to do a certain thing in a certain way, the thing must be done in that way or not at all. Other modes of performance are necessary forbidden. The intention of the rule making authority in enacting Rule 49-A was to confer a power on the specified authorities, and therefore, the power had to be exercised by those authorities and not otherwise. In that case also the Division Bench referred to the case of R. Chitralekha (supra) and held that Article 166 is directory in nature. 12 However, the fact of the matter in this case, as noticed hereinbefore, is entirely different. The appointing authority admittedly is the State Government. 13. The State Government thus being the appointing authority was entitled to pass the order of suspension in terms of Rule 49-A of the Bihar Civil Service (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules. 14. Rules of Executive Business which have also been framed by the Governor of Bihar in exercise of its power conferred upon it under Article 166 of the Constitution of India lay down the manner and mode of, as also the authorities empowered to pass an order on behalf of the State of Bihar. By reason of the provisions of Rules of Executive Business, therefore, the functions of the State can be discharged by the Ministers and Officers specially empowered therefor. 15. The petitioner does not deny or dispute the statements, made by the respondents that the proposal for placing the petitioner under suspension was placed before the Minister-in-charge of the concerned Department who approved the same and thereafter the matter was placed before the Chief Minister through the Chief Secretary. 16. In this view of the matter, in our opinion, the Rules of Executive Business must be held to have been complied with. 16. In this view of the matter, in our opinion, the Rules of Executive Business must be held to have been complied with. In view of the fact that the order of suspension as against the petitioner has been passed upon complying with the provisions of Rule 32(ka) of the Rules of Executive Business, in our opinion, no illegality can be said to have been committed in passing the impugned order. 17. Further as is evident from the impugned order of suspension dated 29-6-1993 as contained in Annexure 1 to the writ application it is absolutely clear that the same has been authenticated by an Officer competent therefor. 18. It has also been rightly submitted by the learned Standing Counsel that the Article 166 of the Constitution of India being directory in nature, the impugned order of suspension cannot be quashed only because the same has not been drawn in the name of Governor, in view of the fact that the order has been passed by the appointing authority namely the State of Bihar. 19. For the reasons aforementioned, there is no merit in this application which is accordingly dismissed. 20. However, keeping in view the nature of allegations as against the petitioner, we may observe that the disciplinary proceeding as against the petitioner should be concluded at an early date and preferably within a period of four months from the date of the receipt of a copy of this order. Gurusharan Sharma, J. 21 I agree.