ORDER 1. This appeal under section 2(1) of the Madhya Pradesh Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyayapeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005, is directed against the order dated 6.3.2020 passed in Writ Petition No. 4536/2020. 2. The writ petition at the instance of present appellant was directed against an order dated 28.1.2020, whereby he was placed under suspension. 3. Learned Single Judge on a finding that the suspension was because of the appellant being prosecuted under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, upheld the suspension order finding it to be in consonance with the first proviso to sub-rule (1) of rule 9 of the Madhya Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966. 4. The challenge is on the ground that the writ Court glossed over the issue which was raised by the appellant as regard to competency of the Under Secretary in passing the order of suspension. 5. Taking us through rule 9 of 1966 Rules, it is submitted that the suspension can be either by the Appointing Authority or any Authority to which it is subordinate, or the disciplinary authority or any other authority empowered in that behalf by the Governor by general or special order. 6. In the case at hand, it is urged that the appellant was holding the post of Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat Nagod, District Satna on deputation. His substantive post was that of Deputy Commissioner (Development), a Class I post, whose Appointing Authority being the State, it was beyond the competence of the Under Secretary to have placed the petitioner/appellant under suspension. 7. Considered the rival submissions and perused the record. 8. The order suspending the petitioner is in the following terms: e/; Áns'k 'kklu iapk;r ,oa xzkeh.k fodkl foHkkx ea=ky;] vkns'k Hkksiky] fnukad 28-1-2020 Øekad ,Q&05&06@2019 fo&5@22@LFkk&Jh Ñ".kdkar ik.Ms; rRdkyhu eq[; dk;Zikyu vf/kdkjh tuin iapk;r ukxksn ftyk lruk ewy in mik;qDr ¼fodkl½ orZeku esa eq[; dk;Zikyu vf/kdkjh tuin iapk;r flfoy lsok ¼oxhZdj.k] fu;a=.k rFkk vihy½ fu;e 1966 ds fu;e 9¼1½ ch ds rgr rRdky çHkko ls fuyafcr fd;k tkrk gSA 2- fuyacu vof/k esa Jh ik.Ms; dk eq[;ky; dk;kZy; eq[; dk;Zikyu vf/kdkjh ftyk iapk;r dVuh fu/kkZfjr fd;k tkrk gSA 3- fuyacu mijkar fu/kkZfjr fd;s x;s eq[;ky; ij mifLFkfr gksus dh fnukad ls fu;ekuqlkj thou fuokZg HkRrk ns; gksxkA e/; çns'k ds jkT;iky ds uke ls rFkk vkns'kkuqlkj ¼'kksHkk fudaqHk½ voj lfpo] e/; çns'k 'kklu iapk;r ,oa xzkeh.k fodkl foHkkx 9. Evident it is from the order that the same is passed in the name and by order of the Governor. It is the communication which bears the signature of Under Secretary. 10. In view whereof, the contention raised on behalf of the appellant that the suspension is by incompetent authority cannot be carried further as would warrant indulgence with the order passed by learned Single Judge. 11. Consequently, appeal fails and is dismissed. No costs.