JUDGMENT 1. - The Executive Officer, Municipal Board, Abu Road under an order dated 23.4.2010 placed the petitioner under suspension and further directed him to report in the office of Executive Officer, Municipal Board, Pindwara. Being aggrieved by the same, the petition for writ is preferred. 2. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that as per Rule 13 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 (for short 'the Rules of 1958' hereinafter), the petitioner could have been suspended either by the appointing authority or by an authority to whom appointing authority is subordinate or by any other authority empowered by the Government in that behalf, but in the instant matter the order passed by the Executive Officer, who is neithr appointing authority of the petitioner nor the appointing authority of the petitioner Is subordinate to him and he is also not empowered by the Government to exercise the powers under Rule 13 of the Rules of 1958, to place the members of Ministerial Staff under suspension. It is also submitted that in no case the Executive Officer, Municipal Board, Abu Road was having any authority to direct the petitioner to report in the office of the Executive Officer, Municipal Board, Pindwara, that being absolutely a different local body. 3. While contesting the petition, it is submitted by learned counsel for the respondent Municipal Board that the Board in its meeting dated 21.4.2010 resolved to take appropriate action against the petitioners found responsible for getting illegalities while granting leases to the shops and land under the ownership of the Municipal Board. It is further stated that a resolution was also taken to remove the petitioner from the charge of revenue section, as such, in compliance of the resolution aforesaid, the Chief Executive Officer passed the order of suspension. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 5. It is not in dispute that the Rules of 1958 are applicable for the employees of the Municipal Board being adopted. The powers under Rule 13 of the Rules of 1958 can be exercised by the appointing authority or by an authority to whom the appointing authority is subordinate or by an authority specifically empowered by the Government on that behalf. As per the respondents, on 21.4.2010 the Board resolve to place the petitioner under suspension, therefore, the Chief Executive Officer , passed the order impugned. As per the respondents, on 21.4.2010 the Board resolve to place the petitioner under suspension, therefore, the Chief Executive Officer , passed the order impugned. The resolution of the Municipal Board reads as under : " izLrko la[;k 3 %& uxjikfydk nqdkuksa ,oa Hkwfe tks fdjk;s ij py jgh gS] dks fodz; ls 99 o"kZ dh yht ij nsus ckcr%& cSBd us ,sls izdj.kksa tks fd nqdkuksa o Hkwfe dks uxjikfydk }kjk fdjk;s ij fn;s tkus ls lacaf/kr gSa] ij O;kid ppkZ dh xbZ ftl ij loZlEefr ls izLrko ikfjr fd;k x;k fd jkT; ljdkj }kjk tkjh fn'kk funsZ'kksa ,oa fu;eksa ds vUrxZr ,slh Hkwfe dks fodz; ls 99 o"kZ dh yht ij fn;s tkus dk izko/kku gSA bl laca/k esa loZlEefr ls izLrko ikfjr fd;k fd dqy yfEcr izdj.kksa esa ls Lohd'r ;ksX; ,oa vLohd'r ;ksX; izdj.kksa dh Nvuh dh tkdj lHkh i=kofy;ksa dks vkxkeh e.My dh cSBd esa fopkjkFkZ ,oa vuqeksnukFkZ j[kk tkosA cSBd esa jktLo 'kk[kk esa iV~Vs tkjh djus esa vfu;ferrk ds laca/k esa O;kid ppkZ dh xbZ ,oa ppkZ ds i'pkr~ loZlEefr ls izLrko ikfjr fd;k x;k fd tkap esa nks"kh ik;s x;s dkfeZdksa@tuizfrfuf/k;ksa ds fo:) fu;eksa ds vUrxZr dk;Zokgh vey esa ykbZ tkosA lkFk gh cSBd esa ;g Hkh izLrko ikfjr fd;k x;k fd jktLo 'kk[kk fyfid dks jktLo 'kk[kk ds dk;ksZa ls rqjUr izHkko ls gVk;k tkosA " 6. The resolution aforesaid nowhere mentions about any decision for placement of the petitioner under suspension. It simply mentions that appropriate action be taken in accordance with law and further that the revenue clerk be removed from the Revenue Section. The respondent Municipal Board in view of the resolution aforesaid was competent to take any action in accordance with law to maintain discipline in the organisation, however, such action is suppose to be taken in accordance with law. As per Rule 13 of the Rules of 1958, the petitioner could have been placed under suspension by the appointing authority or by the other authorities as referred under Rule 13, however, none of the authorities have passed the order impugned. On asking, learned counsel for the respondents specifically denied that any empowerment is there in favour of the Executive Officer to exercise powers under Rule 13 of the Rules of 1958 relating to Ministerial Staff. 7. By the order dated 23.4.2010, the Executive Officer also directed the petitioner to report at Municipal Board, Pindwara. On asking, learned counsel for the respondents specifically denied that any empowerment is there in favour of the Executive Officer to exercise powers under Rule 13 of the Rules of 1958 relating to Ministerial Staff. 7. By the order dated 23.4.2010, the Executive Officer also directed the petitioner to report at Municipal Board, Pindwara. This virtually amount to transfer the petitioner and power to do so is available to State Government only under the Municipalities Act. 8. In such circumstances, the order impugned is apparently without jurisdiction and the same deserves to be quashed. Accordingly, this petition for writ allowed. The order impugned dated 23.4.2010 passed by the Executive Officer, Municipal Board, Abu Road, placing the petitioner under suspension and further directing him to report before the Executive Officer, Municipal Board, Pindwara Is quashed. However, the respondents shall be at liberty to take disciplinary action in accordance with law.Writ Petition Allowed. *******