JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 6.7.1994, passed by the learned Single Judge, by which the learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition filed by Bheru Lal Siroya and quashed the order Annexure-5 dated 4.5.1994, passed by the District Collector, Rajsamand, by which Mr. Bheru Lal Siroya was put under suspension. 2. Mr. Bheru Lal Siroya was appointed as teacher in the Education Department on 1.7.1959. He was later on promoted as Lecturer (School Education). On 11.8.1989, he was promoted as the Education Extension Officer. After his promotion as Education Extension Officer, he was sent on deputation to the Gramin Vikas and Panchayati Raj Department. On 29.8.1989, he was posted as the Education Extension Officer in the Gramin Vikas and Panchayati Raj Department. On 25.6.1993, he was selected and posted as the Vikas Adhikari. While he was working as the Vikas Adhikari, Panchayat Samiti, Railmagra, in a trap arranged by the Rajasthan Intelligence Bureau, he was caught red-handed taking the bribe of Rs. 1,000/-. The District Collector, Rajsamand acting under rule 13 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 (for short, 'the C.C.A. Rules, 1958'), in contemplation of an enquiry, vide order dated 4.5.1994, put the petitioner-respondent under suspension. Bheru Lal filed a writ petition challenging the order of his suspension Annexure-5 dated 4.5.1994. The learned Single Judgen placed reliance on the judgment of another Single Bench given in Mohan Lal Bishnoi v. State of Rajasthan and others (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2029 of 1992 decided on March 29, 1993) and quashed the order of suspension Annexure-5 dated 4.5.1994 passed by the learned District Collector, Rajsamand. The learned Single Judge was of the view that the order of suspension has not been passed by the competent authority as the District Collector was neither the Disciplinary Authority nor the appointing authority of Bheru Lal. It is against this judgment that the State of Rajasthan and another have preferred this special appeal. 3. The learned Single Judge was of the view that the order of suspension has not been passed by the competent authority as the District Collector was neither the Disciplinary Authority nor the appointing authority of Bheru Lal. It is against this judgment that the State of Rajasthan and another have preferred this special appeal. 3. It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellants that Bheru Lal, working as the Vikas Adhikari in Panchayat Samiti, Railmagra in the Department of Gramin Vikas and Panchayati Raj, was under the control of the District Collector, Rajsamand, being the District Development Officer and he was the Disciplinary Authority so far as the imposition of minor penalties of censure or withholding of two annual grade increments (without cumulative effect) is concerned and being the Disciplinary Authority, he was competent to pass the order putting the petitioner-respondent under suspension and the learned Single Judge was not right in quashing the order of suspension passed by the learned District Collector, Rajsamand, on the ground that he was not competent to pass the order of suspension. The learned counsel for the respondent (the original petitioner in the writ petition), on the other hand, has supported the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge and submitted that the petitioner was a member of Education Services and the appointing authority of the petitioner-respondent was the Director of Education and, therefore, the District Collector was neither the Disciplinary Authority nor the appointing authority of the petitioner and as such the order of suspension passed by him is without jurisdiction. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the respondent-petitioner has placed reliance over the judgment of the learned Single Judge rendered in Mohan Lal Vishnoi v. The State of Rajasthan and others (supra). 4. We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. 5. By way of putting an official under suspension, he neither loses his office nor he suffers from any degradation but he is temporarily debarred from performing his official functions in the public interest as his continuation on the same post may again result in his indulging in such activities. But the suspension order, passed by an authority, can be upheld only if it emanates from the competent authority. But the suspension order, passed by an authority, can be upheld only if it emanates from the competent authority. As per rule 13 of the C.C.A. Rules, 1958, an official can be put under suspension by the appointing authority or any authority to which he is subordinate or by any other authority empowered by the Government in this behalf. The petitioner- respondent was serving in the Education Department as the Education Extension Officer when he was sent to the Gramin Vikas and Panchayati Raj Department and his appointing authority is the Director of Education. While serving in the Gramin Vikas and Panchayati Raj Department, the petitioner-respondent was selected as the Vikas Adhikari under the Rajasthan Civil Services (Special Selection and Special Condition of Service of the Vikas Adhikaris) Rules, 1982 (for short, 'the Rules, 1982'). As per rule 3(a) of the Rules, 1982, the appointing authority of the Vikas Adhikari is the Government of Rajasthan. Rule 6 of the Rules, 1982, deals with the tenure of the office, which provides that the post of Vikas Adhikari shall be held by the officer for the tenure ordinarily not exceeding three years which may be extended by the Government for a further term not exceeding three years. The proviso to rule 6 of the Rules, 1982 authorises the Government to withdraw any officer selected and appointed as the Vikas Adhikari at any time before the completion of his tenure without assigning any reasons and revert him to his parent department. Sub-rule (2) of rule 6 of the Rules, 1982, further provides that the officer selected and appointed as Vikas Adhikari shall have the lien on his respective parent cadre and on reversion from such deputation, shall not have any right to protection of pay, scale or status held by him as Vikas Adhikari unless otherwise provided in these Rules. Rule 16 of the Rules further provides that except as provided under these Rules, the other service conditions of the Vikas Adhikari appointed under these Rules, shall be regulated by the Rules applicable to the officials of the State Government made by the appropriate authority under proviso (2) to Article 309 of the Constitution of India. Schedule II appended to the Rules of 1982, deals with the pay, promotion and other conditions of service of the Vikas Adhikaris. Schedule II appended to the Rules of 1982, deals with the pay, promotion and other conditions of service of the Vikas Adhikaris. A provision has been made in Schedule II regarding the promotion of the concerned officer in his parent cadre and provides that a person appointed as the Vikas Adhikari under the Rules, shall be entitled to proforma promotion in his parent cadre and his pay on the higher post of the parent cadre shall be fixed in accordance with the provisions contained in rule 26-A of the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951. The period of service rendered by him as the Vikas Adhikari shall be counted for the purpose of grant of the annual grade increments in the pay scale applicable to his post in the parent cadre from time to time. 6. The appointment of the Vikas Adhikari under the Rules, 1982, is on deputation and the officer appointed as Vikas Adhikari, will hold lien on his substantive post in his parent department and continue to earn his annual increments and promotions in his parent cadre as he would have earned but for his deputation and will be under the disciplinary control of the appointing authority of his parent department so far as the imposition of the major punishment is concerned. 7. A Notification has been issued by the State Government under Sub-rule (1) of rule 15 of the C.C.A. Rules, 1958 empowering the Collector (the District Development Officer) concerned to initiate proceedings against the Vikas Adhikaris for imposition of penalties of censure or withholding the grade increments (upto two) without cumulative effect. The Notification issued by the State Government reads as under:- "(10). In exercise of the powers conferred by Sub-rule (1) of rule 15 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958, the State Government hereby:- (i) Withdraws Department of Personnel Notification No. F.33(7) A.A. III/68 dated 27.5.1972. (ii) Specially empowers the Collector (District Development Officer) concerned to initiate disciplinary proceedings against Vikas Adhikari posted in his district for imposition of minor penalties. (ii) Specially empowers the Collector (District Development Officer) concerned to initiate disciplinary proceedings against Vikas Adhikari posted in his district for imposition of minor penalties. The Collector may impose the penalty of 'censure' and 'withholding of grade increments (upto two) without cumulative effect' only; where he feels that having regard to the reply of the delinquent officer imposition of minor penalty other than that specified above, is warranted than he may make reference to the Director, Community Development who shall have full powers to impose any minor penalty against such delinquent officer. (iii) Orders that a Vikas Adhikari against whom an order imposing the penalty specified in sub-para (2) above, is passed by the Collector may appeal to the Director, Community Development." A further Notification, which is relevant for the disposal of the present controversy, has been issued by the State Government on October 17, 1986, which reads as under:- "G.S.R. 84. In supersession of all the orders issued in this behalf and in exercise of the powers conferred by Sub-rule (1) of Rule 15 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958, the Government hereby empower all the Heads of Departments to impose minor penalties upto the stoppage of two grade increments (without cumulative effect) in respect of the State Service Officers of the lowest level or the first entry level who are directly working under their control and belonging to the respective services of which they are Heads of Departments." By the Notification of 1986 (G.S.R. 84), all the Heads of the Departments have been authorised by the State Government to impose minor penalties upto stoppage of two grade increments (without cumulative effect) in respect of State Service Officers of the lowest level or the first entry level who are directly working under their control and belong to a respective service of which they are Heads of Departments. The respondent-petitioner, though belongs to the Education Service and his Head of Department, as per the Schedule, was the Director of Education, but at the time when he was put under suspension, he was not working directly under the control of his Head of Department but was working as the Vikas Adhikari in Panchayat Samiti, Railmagra in Rajsamand district and, therefore, this Notification No. G.S.R. 84, is not applicable in the present case and the petitioner-respondent is covered by the Notification issued under Sub-rule (1) of Rule 15 of the C.C.A. Rules, 1958, specially authorising the Collector (District Development Officer) to initiate disciplinary proceedings. The learned Single Judge, in the case of Mohan Lal Vishnoi (supra) has held that by the subsequent Notification of 1986, the earlier Notification has been superseded, which finding is incorrect because the subsequent Notification deals with the State Service Officers of the lowest level or first entry level, who are directly working under the Heads of the Departments and belong to the respective service. Firstly, the petitioner-respondent was not working, at the relevant time, directly under the control of the Director of Education, and secondly, the services of the Vikas Adhikaris, as per the Schedule I appended to the Rules, 1982, issued under rule 7 of the Rules, 1958, are special services and not included in the State Service and, therefore, the Notification of 1986 does not cover the case of the Vikas Adhikaris. The learned Single Judge was, therefore, not justified in holding that the Notification dated October 17, 1986, superseded the earlier Notification and this finding of the learned Single Judge is not correct. The judgment given in Mohan Lal Vishnoi's case (supra) does not lay down the correct position of law. 8. The District Collector, Rajsamand, being the District Development Officer and the Head of the Department, was, therefore, authorised by the Notification referred above, to hold an enquiry against the Vikas Adhikaris for the imposition of the minor punishment and, therefore, in contemplation of the enquiry he could have placed the petitioner-respondent under suspension. The authority, which is competent to hold an enquiry, also in contemplation of the enquiry, is competent to put an officer under suspension. The authority, which is competent to hold an enquiry, also in contemplation of the enquiry, is competent to put an officer under suspension. The District Collector, Rajsamand, in view of the serious allegations against petitioner-respondent Bheru Lal, if thought that it will not be desirable to allow him to continue on the post of Vikas Adhikari where he was functioning, put him under suspension then no illegality appears to have been committed by the District Collector. The order of suspension Annexure-5, thus, emanates from the competent authority, i.e., the District Collector, who is the District Development Officer and under whose direct control the petitioner-respondent was working and this order of suspension, passed by the District Collector, has been subsequently approved by the State Government. As the District Collector was competent to pass the order putting the respondent-petitioner under suspension, the learned Single Judge was, therefore, not right in setting aside the order of suspension Annexure-5. The judgment, passed by the learned Single Judge, therefore, deserves to be quashed and set aside. 9. In the result, the appeal, filed by the appellants, is allowed. The judgment dated 8.7.1994, passed by the learned Single Judge in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2468 of 1994 is quashed and set aside.Appeal allowed. *******