ORDER H.G. Ramesh, J. 1. The question that requires to be answered in this writ petition is as to whether sub-rule (1)(aa) of Rule 10 is subject to sub-rule (3) of Rule 10 of the Karnataka Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1957 ('the Rules' for short)? A plain reading of sub-rule (1)(aa) of Rule 10 of the Rules would show that it is independent of sub-rule (3) of Rule 10. This is only to state the obvious. Sub-rule (1)(aa) has overriding effect over sub-rule (3). If sub-rule (1)(aa) is applicable to the facts, sub-rule (3) has no application. In this writ petition, the petitioner who is an Assistant Engineer in Karnataka Housing Board is challenging the order of suspension dated 19.9.2013 whereby he is kept under suspension from service. The impugned order of suspension is passed by the appointing authority namely the Commissioner, Karnataka Housing Board in exercise of the power under Rule 10(1)(aa) of the Rules on the ground that the petitioner was found to be in possession of property disproportionate to his known sources of income by the authority authorised to investigate offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. It is relevant to state that the Karnataka Lokayukta Police, on being prima facie satisfied that the petitioner has committed offences punishable under Sections 13(1)(e) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, have registered a case against the petitioner on 25.07.2013 in Crime No. 6/2013 under Section 13(1)(e) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. 2. The sole contention urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the appointing authority without independently evaluating the material collected by the Lokayukta Police, has ordered for the petitioner's suspension in exercise of the power under Rule 10(1)(aa) of the Rules. According to the counsel, this is contrary to sub-rule (3) of Rule 10 of the Rules. He submitted that the appointing authority ought to have independently examined the material collected by the Lokayukta Police and on such examination, if it had come to the conclusion that there is prima facie evidence to support the charge made against the petitioner, then it could have placed the petitioner under suspension. As the matter is not examined as per sub-rule (3), the impugned order is unsustainable in law. 3. As the matter is not examined as per sub-rule (3), the impugned order is unsustainable in law. 3. To examine the contention urged, it is relevant to quote Rule 10 of the Rules to the extent it is relevant herein: 10. Suspension.- (1) The Appointing Authority or any authority to which it is subordinate or any other authority empowered by the Government in this behalf may place a Government Servant under suspension.- ****************************************** (aa) where there is prima facie evidence to show that he was found in possession or had at any time during the discharge of his official duty been in possession of pecuniary resources or property disproportionate to Known source of income, by the persons authorized to investigate offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 or under any other law; (2) ******************************************** (3) The authority competent to place a Government servant under suspension shall examine the relevant material relating to the case and consider whether there is prima facie evidence to support the charges made against the Government servant and it is satisfied on such examination that prima facie evidence exists, it may place the Government servant concerned under suspension. ************************************************* (emphasis supplied) 4. A plain reading of sub-rule (1)(aa) of Rule 10 of the Rules would show that it is independent of sub-rule (3) of Rule 10. This is only to state the obvious. Sub-rule (1)(aa) has overriding effect over sub-rule (3). If sub-rule (1)(aa) is applicable to the facts, sub-rule (3) has no application. 4.1 To exercise power under sub-rule (1)(aa) of Rule 10 of the Rules, the authority empowered to suspend a Government servant will have to only examine as to whether there is prima facie evidence to show that the persons authorised to investigate offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 or under any other law, have found that the government servant was in possession or had at any time during the discharge of his official duty been in possession of pecuniary resources or property disproportionate to his known sources of income. In my opinion, the appointing authority or any other authority empowered to suspend a government servant, has no power to independently evaluate the evidence collected by the persons (investigators) referred to above and to come to a different conclusion in the matter, by invoking sub-rule (3) of Rule 10 of the Rules. In my opinion, the appointing authority or any other authority empowered to suspend a government servant, has no power to independently evaluate the evidence collected by the persons (investigators) referred to above and to come to a different conclusion in the matter, by invoking sub-rule (3) of Rule 10 of the Rules. 4.2 In the present case, the appointing authority has exercised the power under Rule 10(1)(aa) of the Rules in the manner stated above, as the same is evident by the impugned order. As sub-rule (1)(aa) is applicable to the facts of the case, sub-rule (3) has no application and hence question of its compliance does not arise. The sole contention urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner is therefore rejected as devoid of merit. The Writ petition is accordingly dismissed. Petition dismissed.