Judgment 1. The petitioner challenges the order of suspension issued under Rule 17(e) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules primarily on the ground that the Joint Director of Health Services, Ramanathapuram has no authority to pass such orders. BRIEF FACTS:- 2. The petitioner was initially appointed as Assistant Surgeon in the Government Primary Health Centre, Uchipuli, Ramanathapuram District on 17.07.2004 and thereafter, he was transferred to the Government Headquarters Hospital, Ramanathapuram, on 28.07.2013. The wife of the petitioner is also working there as Assistant Surgeon. 3. According to the petitioner, the fifth respondent harassed his wife by compelling her to attend extension O.P., without attending the operation theatre and ultimately, there was a wordy altercation. The fifth respondent insulted his wife in his immediate presence and abused her by using filthy language. This made him to raise his voice. The fifth respondent submitted a false report to the fourth respondent and on the basis of the said report, he was placed under suspension pending initiation of disciplinary proceedings. 4. According to the petitioner, the Director of Health Services and Family Planning and the Director of Medical Education alone are entitled to suspend the officers in the cadre of Assistant Surgeon in the Tamil Nadu Medical Service. The suspension order is, therefore, challenged on the ground of jurisdiction. SUBMISSIONS OF PARTIES: 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner, by placing reliance on the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Medical Code and more particularly, Rule 818(2), submitted that the Director of Health Services and Family Planning/The Director of Medical Education alone are competent to suspend the officers in the cadre of Assistant Surgeons in the Tamil Nadu Medical Service. The learned counsel contended that the fourth respondent has absolutely no authority to suspend the petitioner and as such, the impugned order is liable to be quashed. 6. The learned Government Advocate, by placing reliance on the Government Order in G.O.(Ms) No.19, Personnel and Administrative Reforms (N) Department, dated 11.02.2008, submitted that the Government have delegated the power to officers directly higher to the members holding the posts, to initiate disciplinary proceedings and to suspend the officer from service pending initiation of disciplinary proceedings. However, they shall remit the papers to the Government without passing final orders, in case of disciplinary proceedings initiated under Rule 17(b). FACTUAL ANALYSIS: 7. However, they shall remit the papers to the Government without passing final orders, in case of disciplinary proceedings initiated under Rule 17(b). FACTUAL ANALYSIS: 7. The petitioner is working as Assistant Surgeon at Government Headquarters Hospital, Ramanathapuram. The fourth respondent, who is the administrative Head, is functioning in his capacity as Joint Director of Health Services. The fourth respondent passed the impugned order of suspension dated 28.06.2014 invoking Rule 17(e) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules. 8. The only question that arises for consideration is as to whether the fourth respondent is having the authority to suspend the petitioner from service. 9. The learned counsel for the petitioner, by placing reliance on the provisions of Tamil Nadu Medical code, and more particularly, Rule 818(2), submitted that the Director of Health Services and Family Planning/Director of Medical Education alone are competent to suspend the officers in the cadre of Assistant Surgeons. However, the learned counsel omitted to consider the fact that the Rules provide that they are also competent to suspend all officers, meaning thereby, others are also competent to take disciplinary action and suspend officers in the cadre of Assistant Surgeons in the Tamil Nadu Medical Service. 10. The Government of Tamil Nadu issued an order in G.O.(Ms)No.19, Personnel and Administrative Reforms (N) Department, dated 11.02.2008, whereby and whereunder, power is delegated to the authorities directly higher to the members holding the posts included in the State Services to frame charges under Rule 17(b), even if they are not the competent authority to impose punishment. The Government Order clearly provides that such higher authorities are competent to conduct enquiry. After completing the disciplinary proceedings, the material papers should be forwarded to the competent authority for passing final orders. The Government have also issued a notification, whereby and whereunder, the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules were amended. As per the amended Rule, it was provided that in case the appointing authority or the authority administratively higher to the appointing authority have passed orders of suspension under Rule 17(e) on the members of the State Services, it is open to them to exercise the power to impose the penalty also. The amendment came into force on 11 February, 2008. 11. The amendment came into force on 11 February, 2008. 11. The provisions quoted above would make the position very clear that the authority directly higher to the members holding the posts are entitled to initiate disciplinary proceedings under Rule 17(b), in view of delegation of power. They are also having power to suspend the officers under Rule 17(e). THE LAW REGARDING DELEGATION: 12. The Supreme Court in Sidhartha Sarawgi vs. Board of Trustees for the Port of Kolkata [2014 (5) Scale 113], observed that it is open to the State to delegate the administrative powers. The Supreme Court observed: "4. Regarding delegation of non-legislative/administrative powers on a person or a body to do certain things, whether the delegate himself is to perform such functions or whether after taking decision as per the terms of the delegation, the said agency can authorize the implementation of the same on somebody else, is the question to be considered. Once the power is conferred, after exercising the said power, how to implement the decision taken in the process, is a matter of procedure. The Legislature may, after laying down the legislative policy, confer discretion on an administrative agency as to the execution of the policy and leave it to the agency to work out the details within the framework of that policy. So long as the essential functions of decision making is performed by the delegate, the burden of performing the ancillary and clerical task need not be shouldered by the primary delegate. It is not necessary that the primary delegate himself should perform the ministerial acts as well. In furtherance of the implementation of the decision already taken by the primary delegate as per the delegation, ministerial or clerical tasks may be performed by authorized officers. The complexity of modern day administration and the expansion of functions of the State to the economic and social spheres have made it necessary that the Legislature gives wide powers to various authorities when the situation requires it today's governmental functions are a lot more complex and the need for delegation of powers has become more compelling. It cannot be expected that the head of the administrative body performs each and every task himself. 5.......... 6. Practical necessities or exigencies of administration require that the decision making authority who has been conferred with statutory power, be able to delegate tasks when the situation so requires. It cannot be expected that the head of the administrative body performs each and every task himself. 5.......... 6. Practical necessities or exigencies of administration require that the decision making authority who has been conferred with statutory power, be able to delegate tasks when the situation so requires. Thus, the maxim delegatus non potest delegare, gives way in the performance of administrative or ministerial tasks by subordinate authorities in furtherance of the exercise of the delegated power by an authority." 13. The petitioner has no case that the fourth respondent is not the authority directly higher to the members holding the post of Assistant Surgeon. The fourth respondent, being the Joint Director of Health Services, functioning in the district of Ramanathapuram, is entitled to invoke the power under Rule 17(b) and Rule 17(e) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules. The petitioner was, therefore, not correct in his contention that the fourth respondent has no authority to suspend him from service. There is absolutely no merit in any of the contentions raised by the petitioner. 14. In the upshot, I dismiss the Writ Petition. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is also dismissed. No costs.