JUDGMENT 1. This petitioner was appointed in the police department as Sub-Inspector of Police in the year 1962 and after the prescribed training he was given appointment on 7th April, 1963. In the year 1980 he was promoted as Inspector. He was also entrusted with the duty of Dy. S.P. Dungarpur on 20th August, 1983. The trouble started in the year 1983-84 when a case was registered against him under Section 161 Indian Penal Code and Section (1)(d)(ii) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. He was placed under suspension vide order dated 12th Feb., 1984. This order was passed by the Superintendent of Police, Dungarpur and the order says that it has been passed as per the directions given by the D.I.G. Police Range, Udaipur. This suspension order has been challenged in this petition on the ground that it has been passed by an authority who is subordinate to the appointing authority of the petitioner, who is Director General of Police. 2. The petitioner was reinstated w.e.f. 22nd April, 1991 and it is also alleged that he is being paid only that amount which he was getting prior to his suspension. It may be mentioned that the criminal case against the petitioner is still pending. 3. The appointment letter of the petitioner is Annexure-1, which shows that the appointment is made by Shri Amar Singh Kochor, I.G.P. Rajasthan, Jaipur. The promotion order was also passed by the I.G.P. As seen above the order of suspension has been passed by Superintendent of Police, Dungarpur on the directions of the D.I.G. of Police Range, Udaipur. Under Rule 13 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the CC&A Rules) 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. The grounds on which a Government Servant can be suspended have also been given. In this case, the suspension order is not by the appointing authority or by the authority to which he is subordinate, therefore, it remains to be seen whether the authority who has passed the order has been empowered by the Government to place the Govt. Servant under suspension. 4. In this case, the suspension order is not by the appointing authority or by the authority to which he is subordinate, therefore, it remains to be seen whether the authority who has passed the order has been empowered by the Government to place the Govt. Servant under suspension. 4. In this connection, my attention has been drawn by the learned counsel for the non-petitioners to the notification of the police department dated 30th October, 1982 which has been printed at page No. 160 of the Book compiled by Shri Ghanshyam Sharma on the Rajasthan CC&A Rules as amended upto 31st December, 1991, Edition 1991. This notification confers power to suspend Inspectors on the Superintendent of Police. Therefore, if this Notification was in operation on the date of suspension i.e. on 12th Feb., 1984 then it can be said that authority empowered to inflict minor punishment on Inspector was the Superintendent of Police and as such he was empowered to place the Government Servant, namely Inspector under suspension. 5. Under Rule 15 of the CC&A Rules, it has been provided as to which authority shall be the disciplinary authority. Under Rule 13A, the authority to impose any one of the minor penalties is empowered to place a Government Servant under suspension. But Schedule II attached to the CC&A Rules contains the provisions in respect of the Police Department and for an Inspector, the DIGP has been empowered to impose minor penalties. On basis of this it has been contended that the suspension of the petitioner by the Superintendent of Police on the instructions of the DIG is in accordance with the Rules. 6. The question which arises is whether the Notification No. 15 dated 30.10.1982 can be said to be in operation on 12.2.84, the date on which the petitioner was suspended. In this respect, the learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the CC&A Rules were amended by Notification dated 16.8.1982 which was published in the Gazette of 20.8.1982 and by this amendment Schedule-B appended to the CC&A Rules has been deleted. After the deletion of the Schedule-B the Notification dated 30.10.1982 no longer remains in force as the very basis on which it was issued (Schedule-B) has been deleted from the Rules. After the deletion of the Schedule-B the Notification dated 30.10.1982 no longer remains in force as the very basis on which it was issued (Schedule-B) has been deleted from the Rules. Subsequently, an order was issued by the DGP on 22.12.1985 delegating powers to the disciplinary authority in respect of disciplinary action of various police officers and this order was made effective from 16.8.1982, the date from which the Rules were amended. In this order, DIG has been empowered to impose all minor penalties in respect of Inspectors. However, it is argued that the retrospective operation of this order has not been found to be legal by this Court and the same has been struck down. In Gopikrishna vs. State of Rajasthan, 1987 (1) RLR 889, the DIGP who imposed the penalty had no authority to impose the same on the petitioner who was a Sub-Inspector in the police and the Notification delgating powers to the DIGP retrospectively was considered and it was held that administrative/executive orders cannot be made effective retrospectively and as such, the notification to the extent of its retrospective effect was quashed, and the orders of punishment passed by the DIGP and SIGP were set aside. The same circular again came before the Court in Doongar Chand Dangi vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors., 1989 (2) RLR 587 , and the delegation of powers to DIGP by IGP with retrospective effect i.e. from 16th August, 1982 was held to be illegal and void and punishment imposed by the DIGP on basis of the illegal delegation was held to be unauthorised. 7. Thus, the result of the above discussion is that on the date, the petitioner was suspended i.e. on 12th February, 1984 by the Superintendent of .Police under the orders of the DIG, they were not the, disciplinary authority for the petitioner to impose a minor punishment. Hence, the order of suspension was passed by an unauthorised person. It has been seen above that the petitioner was reinstated w.e.f. 22nd April, 1991 and according to the learned counsel for the petitioner the effect of the suspension order is still continuing because he has not been paid the full amount of salary payable to him but he is being paid only the amount which he was getting prior to his suspension. It is contended that he would have been getting more even if his suspension had continued. It is contended that he would have been getting more even if his suspension had continued. This payment has been justified by the respondent on the ground that the criminal case against the petitioner is still pending. However, when the order of suspension was passed by an unauthorised authority then it has to he set aside on the ground that it is illegal and the petitioner would be entitled to get consequential benefits in salary. As far as the claim for future promotion is concerned, it can only be said that the DPC should consider his case for promotion alongwith the fact that a criminal case is pending against him and proceed according to the Rules. 8. This writ petition is allowed and the order of suspension of the petitioner is declared illegal. The petitioner shall get consequential benefits as if he was not placed under suspension. His case for promotion shall be considered by the DPC in accordance with rules keeping in view that the criminal case is still pending against him.Petition allowed. *******