JUDGMENT M.Y. Eqbal, J. 1. This appeal under clause 10 of the Letters Patent is directed against the judgment dated 21.12.2006 passed in W.P. (S) No. 4132 of 2006 whereby the learned Single Judge has allowed the writ petition and quashed the order dated 13.7.2006 whereby the respondent (writ petitioner) was put under suspension on the allegations of committing gross irregularity and causing loss to the appellant - Jharkhand State Electricity Board. 2. The facts of the case lie in a narrow compass: At the relevant time, the writ petitioner was holding the post of Junior Engineer posted at Jamshedpur. By the impugned order dated 13.7.2006 issued under the signature of Additional Secretary, Jharkhand State Electricity Board (in short 'JSEB'), the respondent-writ petitioner was put under suspension on the allegations that he was prima facie found guilty of committing gross irregularity and causing loss to the Board and also guilty of gross indiscipline, insubordination and gross misconduct on his part. The case of the writ petition was that while he was posted as Junior Engineer, he conducted raids to unearth large scale energy theft and became an eyesore of many including Electrical Superintending Engineer. 3. Before the learned Single Judge, the impugned order of suspension was challenged mainly on the ground that the impugned order was issued by the Additional Secretary which is without jurisdiction. It was contended that according to the provisions of Rule 49(a) of the Civil Services (Classification Control and Appeal) Rules applicable to the employees of the Board, the appointing authority or any authority to which it is subordinate, may place a Government servant under suspension where departmental proceeding is contemplated. The learned Single, after hearing the parties, came to the conclusion as mentioned in para. 6 of the judgment which is quoted herein below: 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 other authority. There is no material on record to show that the said power can be delegated to any other 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 said Civil Services Rules. Moreover, the said document is incomplete and not authentic 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 lime 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 for passing the impugned order of petitioner's 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. 4. From the aforesaid paragraph, it is manifestly clear that the learned Single Judge, after holding the order of suspension was not issued either by the appointing authority or by any authority to which it is subordinate, held that the impugned order dated 13.7.2006 is without jurisdiction. 4. From the aforesaid paragraph, it is manifestly clear that the learned Single Judge, after holding the order of suspension was not issued either by the appointing authority or by any authority to which it is subordinate, held that the impugned order dated 13.7.2006 is without jurisdiction. Memo No. 188 dated 17.7.2006 was brought by the Board to show the delegation of power. The learned Single Judge did not rely upon it on the ground that there is no reference of Rule 49(a) of the Civil Services (Classification Control and Appeal) Rules. 5. Mr. R. Krishna, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant-Board, assailed the impugned order as being contrary to law and the facts available on record. Learned Counsel submitted that under the Indian Electricity Act as well as the decision of the Board, the Board is empowered to delegate power to the subordinate authority with regard to initiation of departmental proceeding including suspension. 6. Learned Counsel further submitted that it is the Member Board of Revenue who had taken the decision to suspend the respondent and not the Additional Secretary who merely communicated the same and, therefore, it is incorrect to say that the Additional Secretary had taken the decision to suspension the respondent-writ petitioner. 7. In course of argument, learned Counsel for the appellant produced before us the entire departmental record and drew our attention to various notes to show that the impugned decision of suspension of the respondent was taken by the competent authority and not by the Additional Secretary who only communicated the order of suspension. 8. From perusal of the departmental record, it appears that after formation of Bihar State Electricity Board w.e.f. 1.4.1958, the Bihar Service Code and the Discipline and Appeal Rules of the State Government was adopted by the Board vide standing order No. 2 dated 10.4.1958 which was subsequently notified as a Regulation under Section 79(c) of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948 vide Notification No. 3919 dated 12.12.1963. The Standing Order dated 29.7.1983 was issued by the Bihar State Electricity Board whereby Rule 49(a) of the Civil Services (Classification Control and Appeal) Rules was adopted. 9. The Standing Order dated 29.7.1983 was issued by the Bihar State Electricity Board whereby Rule 49(a) of the Civil Services (Classification Control and Appeal) Rules was adopted. 9. For better appreciation, the relevant portion of the Standing Order dated 29.7.198.) is quoted herein Mow: Standing Order No. I. Sc-101 82 642 EB Pallia, Dated, the 29.7.83 Consequent upon the formation of the Bihar State Electricity Board with effect from 1.4.1958, the Bihar Service Code and the Discipline and Appeal Rules of the State Government were adopted by the Board vide Standing Order No. 2 dated 10.4.1958. which was subsequently notified as a Regulation under Section 79(c) of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948 vide Notification No. 3919 dated 12.12.1963. 2. The relevant Rules 96, 99 and 100 of the Bihar Service Code are only relevant to suspension. The Bihar Service Code is silent with regard to suspension on the ground of contemplated departmental proceedings. The Government servants Civil Services Rules also did not contemplate suspension in the given circumstances till the year 1973. The provision far suspension in the given circumstances was made by inserting Rule 49(a) in the Civil Services (Classification Control and Appeal Rules, 1930 for the first time in the year 1973. As stated above, the Bihar State Electricity Board adopted the Bihar Service Code and other allied rules as early as in the year 1958 when the amended aforesaid provision itself was not in existence as it was incorporated by the amendment done in the year 1973. The said amended provision was not adopted by the Board. At the same time, , the adoption of the Bihar Service Code as done by the Board in the year 1958 also did not stipulate to have all subsequent modifications' amendments made, if any, as deemed to have been automatically adopted by the Board. Nor is such generalized adoption legally permissible. Besides, the Supreme Court, in the ruling as reported in the A.I.R. 1967 has also observed that such mutatis-mutandis adoption of rules at a particular time does not amount to adoption of all future amendments. 4. Position being so the adoption of rule 49(a) by the Board is accordingly essential. The matter was considered and an agenda note was placed before the Board in its meeting held on the 22nd, July, 1983 which was approved by the Board vide its Resolution No. 5476. 4. Position being so the adoption of rule 49(a) by the Board is accordingly essential. The matter was considered and an agenda note was placed before the Board in its meeting held on the 22nd, July, 1983 which was approved by the Board vide its Resolution No. 5476. In pursuance of the said resolution of the Board, rule 49(a) of the Civil Services (Classification Control and Appeal Rule, 1930 is adopted with immediate effect, in the following forms. (1) The appointing authority or any authority to which it is subordinate or the Chairman of the Board, by general or special order, may place a Board's servant under suspension, (a) Where a disciplinary proceeding against him is contemplated or is pending or (b) Where a case against him in respect of any criminal offence is under investigation, enquiry or trial. (2) Board's servant shall be deemed to have been placed under suspension by an order of appointing authority: (a) With effect from the date of his detention, if he is detained in custody, whether on a criminal charge or otherwise. (b) With effect from the date of his conviction, if in the event of a conviction for an offence, he is sentenced to a term of imprisonment exceeding forty either hours and is not forthwith dismissed or removed or compulsorily retired consequent to such conviction. Explanation - The period forty eight hours referred to in Clause (b) of this Sub-rule shall be computed from the commencement of the imprisonment after the conviction and for this purpose intermittent periods of imprisonment if any, shall be taken into account. 10. After formation of Jharkhand State Electricity Board, all the Rules, Regulations and Standing Order were adopted by the Jharkhand State Electricity Board. From perusal of the Financial and Accounts Code, it transpires that power to suspend and initiate departmental proceeding against a Junior Engineer has been delegated to the concerned General Manager-cum-Chief Engineer/General Manager, Area Board. 11. The moot question that falls for consideration is as to whether the order of suspension was passed by the Additional Secretary or it was only communicated by him? 12. The original record wherein allegations and the matters relating to the departmental proceeding of the respondent were dealt with, was produced before us. From perusal of the record, it appears that the allegations made against the respondent were dealt with in detail by the Department. 12. The original record wherein allegations and the matters relating to the departmental proceeding of the respondent were dealt with, was produced before us. From perusal of the record, it appears that the allegations made against the respondent were dealt with in detail by the Department. It was brought to the notice of the higher authority that the respondent Naveen Kumar Singh, Junior Engineer, purchased a piece of land in the name of his wife and planned to establish an industry and he was paying much of his attention towards the construction of his own industry and did not take interest in the Board's work. 13. It was further alleged that he prepared an estimate for installation of 11 KVA feeder at Vaishali Chemicals and for clearance of height of electric wire at Industrial Area, he had not done any work. Several other allegations were brought to the notice of the higher authorities and the matter was inquired into. Ultimately, the Member Board of Revenue, JSEB, passed order on 13.7.2006 for placing the respondent under suspension with immediate effect. It was further ordered that charge-sheet may be issued within 15 days. 14. It has not been disputed by the counsel for the respondent-writ petitioner that the Member, Revenue, JSEB, is the competent authority to pass order of suspension. After the said order was passed, the Additional Secretary was directed to communicate the same to the respondent. Accordingly, the order of suspension was communicated by the impugned letter. It is, therefore, crystal clear that the Additional Secretary had not taken the decision to suspension the respondent, rather the decision was taken by the competent authority. In our view, therefore, the learned Single Judge has not correctly appreciated the case of the appellant-Board that the order of suspension was passed by the competent authority and not by the Additional Secretary who simply communicated the same to the respondent. 15. It is well settled that order of suspension of a Government servant does not put an end to his service under the Government. He continues to be the member of service in spite of order of suspension. In the instant case, the mere fact that the impugned order of suspension does not contain a recital that the competent authority after having satisfied passed the order of suspension, does not render the said order invalid. He continues to be the member of service in spite of order of suspension. In the instant case, the mere fact that the impugned order of suspension does not contain a recital that the competent authority after having satisfied passed the order of suspension, does not render the said order invalid. It is well settled that in cases where exercise of statutory power is subject to the fulfillment of a condition that recital about the said condition having been fulfilled in the order, raises presumption about the fulfillment of the said condition. In our considered opinion, after considering the relevant records, the impugned order of suspension does not suffer from any illegality or is not mala fide or without jurisdiction. 16. For the reasons aforesaid, this appeal is allowed and the impugned judgment passed by the learned Single Judge is set aside. Appeal dismissed.