Judgment :- K.A. Abdul Gafoor, J. As per Ext. P1, the petitioners were placed under suspension. Ext. P1 is an order issued by the Government in Vigilence Department. Ext. P1 was issued based on a letter from the Director of Vigilence Investigation reporting that the surprise check had been conducted in the Taluk Supply Office, Manjeri, where the petitioners were working, on the allegation that the officials in that office were habitually accepting illegal gratification from the ration shop dealers on the first working day of each month for sanctioning monthly permits for sugar, kerosine etc. It was also reported that "surprise check revealed that this is an instance of a corruption racket being practised by all officials of the particular office". Therefore the Director of Vigilence Investigation requested for sanction for detailed enquiry in the matter. It is in the above circumstances that Government considering the report of the Director of Vigilence Investigation placed the petitioner under suspension by Ext. P1 order. . 2. In the petitioners' 'own words' what is mainly contented in the Original Petition is that " the Vigilence Department is not empowered duly to place on suspension, employees of other departments like the petitioners who are employees of the Civil Supplies Department". Therefore, according to them. "Ext. P1 is beyond the jurisdiction of the authority which issued the same and is clearly contrary to Rule 10 of the rules". Expanding this submission the petitioners further urged, in Ground A to the Original Petition, that" it is only the Director of Civil Supplies, who has the power of appointment of the petitioners. Rule 9 of the Kerala Civil Services (Classification, Control and appeal) Rules is "specific that the appointing authority shall be the Government. No doubt the power of appointment can be delegated, but no such delegation has been made in the case of the petitioners. It may therefore, be seem that if the petitioners are members of the Civil Supplies Department, the Secretary to Vigilence Department has absolutely no administrative control over them or disciplinary powers also over them... Rule 10 of the Kerala Civil Services (Classification, Control and appeal) Rules specifically enjoins that only the appointing authority or a higher authority or an authority specifically empowered in that behalf, shall place a Govt. servant under suspension. Rule 10 of the Kerala Civil Services (Classification, Control and appeal) Rules specifically enjoins that only the appointing authority or a higher authority or an authority specifically empowered in that behalf, shall place a Govt. servant under suspension. The second respondent, it is submitted, with respect, does not fail within any one of these categories No such power is delegated or notified by the Govt. in terms of Rule 10. Since the Kerala Civil Services (Classification Control and appeal) Rules, are framed under Art.309 of the Constitution of India, the issuance of an executive order, assuming without conceding that any order has been issued, will not do duty for the empowerment specifically mentioned under Rule 10 the 2nd respondent has no jurisdiction to place the employees of the Kerala Civil Supplies Department like the petitioners on suspension. The order Ext. P1 is totally void in law and unenforceable." 3. The petitioners thus admits that under Rule 9 of the said Rules, it is specific that the appointing authority shall be the Government. If the appointing authority is Government, the Government can place the petitioners under suspension. Rule 10(1) reads as follows: " The appointing authority or any authority to which it is subordinate or any other authority empowered by the Govt. in that behalf may at any time place a Govt. servant under suspension." So the power can be exercised by three authorities namely: (a) the appointing authority. (b) the authority higher than the appointing authority and (c) an empowered authority. 4. To exercise the power under Rule 10, the appointing authority or higher authority need not have a specific empowerment. Specific empowerment is contemplated only in respect of the authorities other than the appointing authority or higher authority. Ext. P1 is the suspension order that is an order of Government. That order was issued in exercise of executive power vested in Government and it is expressed in terms of Article 166 of the Constitution of India. Thus by Ext. P1, the executive power of Government is expressed. In other words Ext. P1 is not an order of the second respondent, Secretary to Vigilence Department, but it is an order of the first respondent, the State of Kerala. The Secretary was only authenticating the order of Governor in the manner provided under Article 166(2), in accordance with Rules made by the Governor under Article 166(3). Then Ext. In other words Ext. P1 is not an order of the second respondent, Secretary to Vigilence Department, but it is an order of the first respondent, the State of Kerala. The Secretary was only authenticating the order of Governor in the manner provided under Article 166(2), in accordance with Rules made by the Governor under Article 166(3). Then Ext. P1 will not become an order of Vigilence Secretary. Ext. P1 is an order of the Government of Kerala. Admittedly by the petitioners as mentioned above Rule 9 of the Rules is specific that, the appointing authority shall be the Government; so Government can place them under suspension. Therefore Ext. P1 cannot be said to be incompetent. 5. Admittedly by the petitioner "it is only the Director of Civil Supplies who has the power of appointment of the petitioners". The petitioners cannot dispute that the appointing authority is always subordinate to Government. When Ext. P1 is issued by the Government it is perfectly within the competence of Government in terms of Rule 10 because the Government is an authority higher than the Director of Civil Supplies. On this ground also Ext. P1 is perfectly within the competence of Government. 6. The Kerala Civil Services (Classification, Control and appeal) Rules 1960 were framed under Article 309 of the Constitution of India and is contained under Section 3 of the Kerala Public Service Act, 1968, as rules deemed to have been made under that Act. As per the said Rules, Government have certain powers. Exercise of this power is an executive action by Government and conduct of Government business. Power of Government as per the said Rules shall be exercised in the manner provided under Article 166 of the Constitution of India and the Rules framed by the Governor for the 'convenient transaction of the business of the Government of the State. The orders made by Government shall be "authenticated in such manner as may be specified" in such Rules. Ext. P1 was issued by the Government exercising their power under Rule 10, in accordance, with Article 166. 7. The petitioners' contention that only the Government in Civil Supplies Department alone can place them under suspension is not correct. The Secretary to Government, Civil Supplies Department can authenticate an order of Government only in accordance with the provisions under Article 166 and the Rule made thereunder. 7. The petitioners' contention that only the Government in Civil Supplies Department alone can place them under suspension is not correct. The Secretary to Government, Civil Supplies Department can authenticate an order of Government only in accordance with the provisions under Article 166 and the Rule made thereunder. Then alone it will become a Government order. The Rules of Business provide the manner of issuing an order by Government and its authentication by the Secretaries. As per the gazette notification dated 23-4-1994 notifying GO (MS) No. 169/94/GAD dated 23-4-1994 published in SRO, No. 482/94 the Rules of Business of Government of Kerala had been amended. The counsel for the petitioner has produced a copy of the said notification for my perusal. As per the said amendment, orders sanctioning prosecution of a public-servant under the Code of Criminal Procedure or Prevention of Corruption Act, placing them under suspension and finalising the disciplinary proceedings against him under the relevant rules and orders in pursuance of a Vigilance Enquiry contemplated or initiated can be issued by Government in Vigilance Department. It is based on that notification under Article 166 (3), the Vigilence Secretary has authenticated Ext. P1 Government order. That is perfectly within his competence in terns of the said amendment to the Rules of Business of Government of Kerala. It is not an executive order but a statutory Rule indicating the conduct of Government business as provided under Article 166 of the Constitution of India. It will not run contrary to Rule 10 of the Kerala Civil Services (Classification, Control and appeal) Rules. Rule 10 only mentions about Government or higher authority than the appointing authority who is also Government. The conduct gf Government business is regulated by the said amendment. Therefore the contention of the petitioners that "the issuance of an executive order, assuming without conceding that any order has been issued, will not do duty for the empowerment specifically mentioned under Rule 10" does not hold good. 8. Amendment to the Rules of Business is not empowerment as contained in Rule 10. No empowerment is necessary for Govt. to place the petitioners under suspension. 9. This issue is covered by the decision in Nithyananlhan v. State of Kerala (1995 (2) KLT 250), held that: "According to the petitioners it is the 3rd respondent viz. 8. Amendment to the Rules of Business is not empowerment as contained in Rule 10. No empowerment is necessary for Govt. to place the petitioners under suspension. 9. This issue is covered by the decision in Nithyananlhan v. State of Kerala (1995 (2) KLT 250), held that: "According to the petitioners it is the 3rd respondent viz. Secretary to Public Works Department, who has the power to issue order of suspension representing the appointing authority viz. Govt. For 3rd respondent is enable to do so not by way of a notification under Rule 10(1) of the Kerala Civil Services (Classification, Control and appeal) Rules. The allegation of the business of the Govt. by which the Secretary, Department of Public Works was enabled to issue such an order is under the Rules of Business of the Government of Kerala and not under any other enactment or statutory rule. Thus amendment to the Rules of Business of the Government of Kerala as evidenced by Ext. R2(a) is not in conflict with any other statute or statutory rules. It is also not necessary to issue a notification under Rule 10(1) authorising the 2nd respondent." The second respondent mentioned is the Secretary, Vigilence Department and Ext. R2(a) is the amendment mentioned above. Therefore, the issue raised by the petitioners is covered against them as per the said decision. 10. Ext. P1 order has been passed thus by Government. It is perfectly within the competence of Government. The Government Order is authenticated by the Secretary to Government, Vigilence Department. Ext. P1 is not an order by an empowered authority, but by Government themselves, a higher authority than the appointing authority. So no empowerment under Rule 10 of the Kerala Civil Services (Classification, Control and appeal) Rules is necessary for authentication of the order by Vigilence Secretary. The Vigilence Secretary has authenticated Ext. P1 order in accordance with Rules of Business of Government of Kerala. Therefore Ext. P1 is competently issued and it is within the jurisdiction of the first respondent. 11. The contention of the petitioners that suspension is unwarranted and unsupported by public interest or the prevailing circumstances on the date of order of suspension has also no relevance. The reasons, which lead to Ext. P1, order of suspension is the alleged corruption practised by the petitioners. It is a serious matter. 11. The contention of the petitioners that suspension is unwarranted and unsupported by public interest or the prevailing circumstances on the date of order of suspension has also no relevance. The reasons, which lead to Ext. P1, order of suspension is the alleged corruption practised by the petitioners. It is a serious matter. That the petitioners had been transferred out from the office and their presence anywhere near the scene of the enquiry has been eliminated by reason of such transfer will not make the suspension order unjustified. The allegations against the petitioner are something, which can be practised wherever they are. The allegation of habitually accepting illegal gratification is sufficient reason to place Govt. servants under suspension. That is certainly supported by public interest and such suspension is necessary for the prevailing circumstances. The Supreme Court considering the order of suspension has held in State of Orissa v. Bimal Kumar Mohanlhy (1994 (4) SCC 126) as follows: "Suspension is not a punishment but is only one of forbidding or disabling an employee to discharge the 'duties of office or post held by him. In other words it is to refraim him to avail further opportunity to perpetrate the alleged misconduct or to remove the impression among the members of service that dereliction of duty would pay fruits and the offending employees could get away even pending enquiry without any impediment or to prevent an opportunity to delinquent officer to settle the enquiry or investigation or to win over the witnesses or the delinquent having had an opportunity in office to impede the progress of the investigation or enquiry etc.." 12. Thus whether the petitioners will interfere with the progress of the enquiry is not the only question, which shall lead to passing of suspension order. Ext. P1 contains sufficient reason for their suspension. When the Government servants are placed under suspension pending further action based on the allegations of corruption, they cannot plead violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The corruption charges are the most appropriate reasons in placing a Government servant under suspension. 13. There is no substance in the contention that the petitioners have been discriminated or their livelihood had been deprived. The petitioners are entitled to get subsistence allowance, so they cannot contend that the suspension results in derivation of livelihood and thereby violate Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. 13. There is no substance in the contention that the petitioners have been discriminated or their livelihood had been deprived. The petitioners are entitled to get subsistence allowance, so they cannot contend that the suspension results in derivation of livelihood and thereby violate Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. When there are allegations against them and when pending action on such allegations they are suspended, they cannot contend discrimination stating that others involved are not placed under suspension along with them. Plea of discrimination is not available when there are allegations against the petitioners. 14. The petitioners contend that by reason of passing a suspension order by Government their right of appeal is taken away. The suspension order is issued in terms of the conditions of service. The right of appeal is available only in terms of such conditions of service. Over and above the statutory rules, the petitioners have no right of appeal. The statutory rules provide an appeal only in respect of an order passed by an authority lower than the Government. Even admittedly by the petitioners the Secretary to Civil Supplies Department can place them under suspension. That means Government in Civil Supplies Department can pass order of suspension. In such case there will be no appeal against the order of suspension. Same is the case of the order issued by the Government in Vigilence department. More over a right of appeal is available as per the Rules only against an order passed by the authority lower than the Government. When the order is passed by the Government the incumbents will not be entitled to any appeal. Therefore there is no question of "deprivation of right of appeal to offend Article 14,16 and 21 of the Constitution of India "as contended in ground D to the Original Petitions. In such circumstances the Rules provide for a review as contained in Rule 34 of the Kerala Civil Services (Classification, Control and appeal) Rules. The petitioners can seek such remedy of review; if they choose so. In the above circumstances the petitioners have not made out any case against Ext. P1 warranting interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, Original Petition is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.