ORDER 1. The petitioner before this Court has filed this present petition being aggrieved by the order dated 19.10.2012, placing the petitioner under suspension. 2. Petitioner, who is working on the post of General Manager under the Madhya Pradesh Rural Road Development Authority was placed under suspension by an order dated 19-10-2012 passed by Additional Chief Secretary (Panchayat) and Rural Development Department. 3. Learned Sr. Counsel arguing the matter has argued before this Court that as per the rules applicable to the petitioner, it is only the Minister of the department, who is competent to place an employee under suspension and he has straightaway drawn the attention of this Court towards an order dated 14.03.2012 passed in WP No. 4600/2011, in the case of an identically placed employee Kamal Bhan Singh. 4. His contention is that in the aforesaid case also in similar circumstances, the impugned order of suspension has been set aside. Learned counsel appearing for the Madhya Pradesh Rural Road Development Authority has argued before this Court that the order of suspension was approved by the Hon’ble Minister and he produced the notil-sheet, which bears the signature of the Hon’ble Minister and his contention is that the order was rightly communicated by Additional Chief Secretary (Panchayat) and Rural Development Department. 5. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel for the respondents. 6. This Court in an identical case i.e., WP No. 4600/2011 has held as under:- “The prayer in the petition is for quashment of the order dated 24.5.2011 Annexure P/7 whereby petitioner was suspended from the post of General Manager. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was working as Generlal Manager with respondent No. 2. It is submitted that vide order 24.5.2011 passed by respondent No. 1 petitioner was suspended. It is submitted that the respondent No. 2 was having no power to suspend the petitioner. For this contention learned counsel placed reliance on Annexure P/12, which is the order dated 22.7.2010 issued by respondent No. 1 wherein competent Authority to suspend Class-I Officer is Hon’ble Minister of M.P. Government Panchayat and Rural Development Department. It is submitted that prior to 22.7.2010 the executive committee was empowered, but thereafter it is only the Minister who is empowered. It is submitted that since the order has been issued by the CEO of respondents, therefore, the same is without jurisdiction. It is submitted that prior to 22.7.2010 the executive committee was empowered, but thereafter it is only the Minister who is empowered. It is submitted that since the order has been issued by the CEO of respondents, therefore, the same is without jurisdiction. It is submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case, petition filed by the petitioner be allowed and the Annexure-P/7 be quashed. Learned counsel for the respondent submit that the order has been passed by the Hon’ble Minister and it is only communicated by the Chief Executive Officer. For this contention learned counsel placed reliance on the document Annexure R/2. It is submitted that the charges which are levelled against the petitioner are serious in nature. It is submitted that the petitioner has issued false experience certificate to the Contractor who has performed the job of construction of road, which is below standard. It is submitted that the petition filed by the petitioner be dismissed. From perusal of the order Annexure P/12 it is evident that the competent Authority was Hon/ble Minsiter, M.P. Panchayat and Rural Development Department. Annexure R/2 is the note-sheet wherein the recommendation was made for suspension of the petitioner. The matter was placed before the Hon’ble Minister, who has put his signature. The Hon’ble Minister has not even bother to make any comment either positive or negative, which shows no application of mind. From perusal of the order Annexure P/7 it is evident that the order was issued by the Chief Executive Officer. In the facts and circumstances of the case, petition filed by the petitioner is allowed and the order Annexure P/7 is quashed. Respondents are directed to pass necessary orders within a period of four weeks. With the aforesaid observations, petition stands disposed of”. 7. No writ appeal has been preferred against the aforesaid judgment for the reasons best known to the respondents and, therefore, as in the case of the petitioner a similar procedure was followed by the respondents, by placing him under suspension, the impugned order of the suspension dated 19.10.2012 is accordingly set aside. However, liberty is granted to the respondents to pass an appropriate order afresh, in case need so arises in future, in accordance with law. 8. With the aforesaid, writ petition stands allowed. 9. No order as to costs.