Honble NAOLEKAR, J. – The respondent No.1 Central Co-operative Bank Limited is a co-operative Society registered under the Co-operative Societied Act,1965 and at the relevant time the petitioner was holding the post of Manager in the respondent Bank. The petitioner was placed under suspension vide order dated 19.4.1995 Annex.3 passed by Managing Direc- tor of the Bank. It is contended by the Learned Counsel for the petitioner that the manging Director has no authority to pass the order of suspension as he was neither the appointing authority nor the authority superior to the appointing authority nor any power have been given to him under the Rules framed by the Bank. On the other hand it is contended by the learned councounsel for the respondent that by virtue of the notification issued on 3.1.1980 the provisions of Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification Control and Appeal) Rules 1958 are applicable to the bank employees and therefore the suspension order was rightly issued by the Managing Director. Admittedly the order of suspension was issued by the Managing Director of the Bank. It is admitted case of both the counsel that under the Rules which have been framed by the Bank Cadre Committee is the appointing authority. There was a notification issued on 3.1.1980 by the Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Rajasthan, Jaipur in exercise of power conferred under Rule 41 of the Rajasthan Co-operative Societies Rules 1966 whereunder it is stated that disciplinary proceedings in the absence of approved service rules of the Co-operative Institution, the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 shall apply with the amendments made therein from time to time. Rules 1966 does not provide procedure or provision for disciplinary proceedings. Under the notification, so far it relates to disciplinary proceedings, the petitioners services shall be governed by Rajasthan Civil Services (Classficiation, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958. Rule 13 of the Rules is in respect to the suspension of the employee. Sub-Section (1) provides that the Appointing Authority or any authority to which it is subordinate or any other authority empowered by the Government in that behalf may place a Government servant under suspension. It is obvisous from these rules that either the Appointing Authority or the authority superior to it or any other authority empowered by the Government could have placed the petitioner under suspension. It is obvisous from these rules that either the Appointing Authority or the authority superior to it or any other authority empowered by the Government could have placed the petitioner under suspension. It also provides that 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 that is because under the Rules the State Govt. can authorise a Junior Officer than the Appointing Authority to suspend the Govt. servant where the disciplinary proceedings against him is contemplated or is pending, or where the case in respect of criminal offence is under investigation or trial. (2). Learned counsel for the respondent is unable to show me that the order has been issued by the Cadre Committee , who is the Appointing Authority under the Rules of 1966. It is now well established by catena of decisions of this Court and the Apex Court that the contract of employment can be put to an end by an authority who is empowered to do so. In the absence of it the employee cannot be placed under suspension. It is clear case that the order has not been issued by the Appointing Authority suspen- ding the petitioner. (3). In the result, the order of suspension dated 19.4.1995, Annex. 3 is without jurisdiction and is hereby quashed. The writ petition is allowed.