JUDGEMENT 1. The writ petitioner-appellant aggrieved by the order dated 26.11.2008 passed by the learned Single Judge in C.W.J.C. No. 16666 of 2008 dismissing the writ application has preferred this appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent. 2. Short facts giving rise to the present appeal are that by notification as contained in memo dated 3rd of October, 2008 the writ petitioner-appellant (hereinafter referred to as the petitioner) was put under suspension. Petitioner challenged the same, inter alia, on the ground that the order of suspension has been passed without any basis and even after more than a month no charges have been framed. This submission of the petitioner did not find favour with the learned Single Judge and it was observed that Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 2005 provides a time limit for initiating the proceeding and also contemplates consequences thereof and as that time is not over, the order of suspension cannot be said to have been rendered illegal. 3. It is common ground that memo of charges had been served within the time stipulated under the aforesaid Rules. 4. Mr. Prashant Kashyap, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner altogether raises a new point in this appeal. He submits that the order of suspension has been passed by the inspector General of Registration who is neither the appointing authority nor the disciplinary authority and this itself renders the order of suspension illegal. 5. The entire submission is based on a misconception that it is the Inspector General of Registration which had passed an order of suspension. This is an order of the Government which has been expressed in the name of the Governor and authenticated by the Inspector General of Registration, which is permissible in law. The act of authentication of the order by the Inspector General of Registration shall not make the order, her order. 6. We do not find any merit in the appeal. It is accordingly dismissed.