TARUN AGARWALA, J. ( 1 ) HEARD Sri S. K. Pundir, the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. ( 2 ) THE petitioner is working as Assistant Development Officer, Panchayat and has been suspended by an order dated 28. 3. 2005 issued by the Regional Deputy Director, Panchayat, moradabad, respondent No. 2. The suspension order has been challenged on three counts, namely (1) the suspension order has been passed in the absence of any contemplated inquiry or pending inquiry, (2) the charges so levelled as indicated in the suspension order is minor in nature which will not result in awarding of a major penalty and therefore, no suspension order could be passed as contemplated under the first proviso to Rule 4 of the U. P. Government Servant (Discipline appeal) Rules, 1999, (hereinafter referred to as rules of 1999) (3) the suspension Order has been passed by an authority, who is not competent to pass the suspension order. ( 3 ) WITH regard to the first point, namely that no inquiry was, contemplated or pending and therefore, the suspension order could not have been issued, in my view, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is devoid of any merit. From a perusal of the suspension order, it is clear that an inquiry officer has been appointed which means that an inquiry is contemplated. Even though the. suspension order is not happily worded, nonetheless, it conveys the meaning that an enquiry is contemplated. Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is not correct and is accordingly rejected ( 4 ) WITH regard to the second contention, namely that the suspension order should be passed only when the charges are serious in nature which would result in the awarding of a major penalty, in my view, from a bare perusal of the charges, it appears that the matter is serious in nature which justifies the issuance of the suspension order. In my view, no infirmity can be faulted. ( 5 ) WITH regard to the third contention, I find that the Joint Director by an order dated 18. . 9. 2000 has delegated the power of suspension to the Regional Deputy Directors. Therefore the suspension order has been passed by a competent authority. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is therefore, devoid of any merit. ( 5 ) WITH regard to the third contention, I find that the Joint Director by an order dated 18. . 9. 2000 has delegated the power of suspension to the Regional Deputy Directors. Therefore the suspension order has been passed by a competent authority. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is therefore, devoid of any merit. ( 6 ) THE learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that under the third proviso to Rule 4, the delegated authority has been given the power to suspend a person. But in view of the third proviso to Rule 6, the delegated authority has no power to impose a major penalty of dismissal or removal from service. Since the delegated authority would not impose a major penalty, consequently, he could not suspend the petitioner.