JUDGMENT Narendra Nath Tiwari, J. 1. In this writ application the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 13.7.06 passed by the Additional Secretary, J.S.E.B, Ranchi (respondent No. 3) where by the petitioner has been put under suspension or the allegation that he has been found prima face guilty of committing gross irregularity and causing loss to the Board and also guilty of gross indiscipline and insubordination which amounts to gross misconduct on his part. The petitioner has challenged the said order mainly on two grounds. Firstly, that the respondent No. 3 is neither an appointing authority nor is a disciplinary authority and as such the impugned order passed by him is wholly without jurisdiction. Secondly, that the order is tainted with malafide and arbitrariness and is unsustainable. It has been stated that the petitioner has been maliciously put under suspension on the baseless allegations only in order to victimize him and to put him to loss and harassment. 2. The petitioner is a Junior Engineer and is now posted at Jamshedpur. It has been stated that the petitioner since after his posting at Jamshedpur has been conducting raids to unearth large scale energy theft and has become an eye- shore of many including the respondent No. 5. He has recently caught energy theft of Rs. 58.56 lakhs by one M/S Nanak Ispat by remote sensing computer energy meter. It has been alleged that detection of theft of electrical energy by M/S Nanak Ispat is the main cause of displeasure of Shri Binay Kumar, Electrical Superintending Engineer (respondent No. 5) who for one or the other reason is not happy by the said action of the petitioner. It has been alleged that Sri Binay Kumar is the protector of the Interested industrialists of Adityapur industrial Areas, Jamshedpur and for the said reason the respondent No. 5 has been carrying grudge and prejudice against the petitioner and has managed to get the said impugned order issued with oblique end in order to humiliate the petitioner. 3. The respondents have appeared and filed a lengthy counter affidavit. They have lenied the allegation of malafide and other allegations against the respondent No. 5. However, there is no effective reply to the objection and statement that the suspension order has not been passed by the appointing authority and that the Additional Secretary of the Board is not competent to pass the said order. They have lenied the allegation of malafide and other allegations against the respondent No. 5. However, there is no effective reply to the objection and statement that the suspension order has not been passed by the appointing authority and that the Additional Secretary of the Board is not competent to pass the said order. 4. In course of hearing, Mr. Vimal Kumar, learned. Sr. counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, submitted that the appointing authority of the petitioner is the Board as would be evident from Annexure-14 and the impugned order of suspension has been issued by the Additional Secretary in absence of the Chairman of the Board. It has been submitted that the said order was maliciously issued in haste two days before the Chairman was appointed. It has been submitted that according to the provisions of Rule 49A of the Civil Services (C.C & A) Rules, which are also applicable for the employees or the Board, the appointing authority or any authority to which it is subordinate or the Governor by general or special order, may place a Government servant under suspension where disciplinary proceeding against him is contemplated or is pending, or, where a case against him in respect of any criminal offence is under investigation, inquiry or trial. Learned counsel submitted that when that power has been conferred on a particular authority, the said power cannot be exercised by any other authority. Learned counsel submitted that though the Additional Secretary has got no jurisdiction to issue the impugned order, the same has been issued only in order to victimize the petitioner at the behest of Sri Binay Kumar Electrical Superintending Engineer (respondent No. 5). Learned counsel submitted that even earlier, an attempt was made to victimize the petitioner by issuing an illegal and malicious transfer order. The said order was challenged in this Court and the same was quashed by the order dated 24.1.1.05 passed in W.P.S No. 6791/04 observing that the order of transfer was passed with oblique end in order to punish and humiliate the petitioner. Learned counsel submitted that the impugned order has been also issued only in order to humiliate and cause mental agony and harassment to the petitioner. 5. Mr. Learned counsel submitted that the impugned order has been also issued only in order to humiliate and cause mental agony and harassment to the petitioner. 5. Mr. R. Krishna, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Board, on the other hand, submitted that the petitioner has been prima facie found guilty of committing gross irregularity and causing loss to the board and also of indiscipline and insubordination which amounts to gross misconduct on his part and as such the petitioner has been put under suspension by the impugned order passed by the Additional Secretary who has been delegated with such power by Memo No. 180 dated 7.7.2000. It has been stated that the power to suspend and initiate departmental proceeding has been delegated to the General Manger-cum- Chief Engineer and the power delegated to the lower authority can be exercised by the higher authority, if considered necessary in the interest of law under the provisions contained in Financial and Accounts Code Chapters-I & III of the Board. It has been stated that in absence of the Chairman of the Board, such power has been exercised by the Member or Revenue who is higher authority than the General Manager cum Chief Engineer and has got full power to suspend the petitioner. It has been further submitted that the charge sheet has also been drawn against the petitioner by Resolution No. 4452 dated 29.8.06 and as such the impugned order of the petitioners suspension is legal and justified. 6. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and considering their submissions and also considering the facts, materials on record and legal provisions placed by them, I find that the petitioner was appointed by the Board. According to the provisions contained in Rule 49A of the Civil Services (C. C & A) Rules, the appointing authority or any authority to which it is subordinate or the Governor by general or special order has been given power to put an employee under, suspension. There is no material on record to show that the said power can be delegated to any ether authority. It is an admitted position that the impugned order has not been issued either by the appointing authority or any authority to which it is subordinate. There is no material on record to show that the said power can be delegated to any ether authority. It is an admitted position that the impugned order has not been issued either by the appointing authority or any authority to which it is subordinate. The respondents have brought on record one letter issued by the Secretary of the Board by Memo No. 188 dated 17.7.2000 (Annexure-J) in order to show the delegation of financial power to the officers of the Bihar state Electricity Board and it has been stated that on the back of the said Annexure-J, the power to suspend and initiate departmental proceeding against J.E.E has been delegated to the concerned G.M-cum-C.E, but in the said document there is no reference of Rule 49A of the Civil Services Rules. Moreover, the said document is incomplete and unauthentic as the said document starts from No. xviii and there is no beginning and end of the said document and as such the same has no authenticity. It is well settled that though the suspension is not a punishment, stigma is attached to it and it causes denigration, humiliation and agony to the concerned employee and it also affects him financially, if only subsistence allowance is paid during suspension period. By the impugned order the petitioner has been allowed only subsistence allowance during suspension period. That is the reason, several guidelines have been issued from time to time and the specific provisions have been made for putting an employee under suspension by the authorities empowered for the said purpose. The respondents have failed to justify the authority and competence of the respondent No. 3 of passing the impugned order of petitioners suspension, who is admittedly neither the appointing authority nor an authority higher than the appointing authority. The impugned order dated 13.7.06 (Annexure-5) is thus without jurisdiction and is, hereby, quashed. This writ application is allowed. Though other issues have also been raised in the instant case, consideration and decision thereon is hardly required in view of the above conclusion on the competence of the impugned order. There shall be no order as to costs.