ORDER : This case, though listed for orders, with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, is taken up for final disposal. 2. The petitioner in this writ petition calls in question an order dated 09.02.2021, bearing No.109911-EMP/EST-1-069/16-17 (78087/16-17), which places the petitioner under suspension. 3. Shorn of unnecessary details, brief facts for consideration of the lis are as follows: The petitioner is a Group ‘C’ employee, working as Second Division Assistant, having joined City Municipal Council, Shimogga, which has now become Shimogga Municipal Corporation or Shimogga Mahanagara Palike (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Corporation’ for short). 4. Owing to certain alleged irregularities, pending initiation of disciplinary proceedings, an order is passed by the third respondent – the Commissioner of the Corporation placing the petitioner under suspension. It is this order that is called in question in the subject writ petition. 5. Heard Sri Vijaya Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Smt. M.C.Nagashree, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the first and second respondents and Sri A.V.Gangadharappa, learned counsel appearing for the third respondent. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would vehemently argue and contend that the order dated 09.02.2021, is non est in the eye of law as it is passed by an authority who was not competent or an authority who was not authorized to do so. In this regard, the learned counsel would take this Court to the Karnataka Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the KCS (CCA) Rules’ for short), with particular reference to Rule 10 and the Karnataka Municipal Corporation (Common Recruitment of Officers and Employees) Rules, 2011, to buttress his submission with regard to the order of suspension being without authority of law. 7. On the other hand, Sri A.V.Gangadharappa, learned counsel appearing for the third respondent would submit that in terms of Section 90 of the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the said Act’ for short) the competent authority for imposition of any penalty or otherwise is as prescribed. It is in terms of the notification issued by the government on 17.04.2017, empowering the Commissioner to pass the order of suspension since what is defined in the notification is the punishing authority, but for placing an employee under suspension, the Commissioner or any authority specified, who is competent to pass. 7.1. It is in terms of the notification issued by the government on 17.04.2017, empowering the Commissioner to pass the order of suspension since what is defined in the notification is the punishing authority, but for placing an employee under suspension, the Commissioner or any authority specified, who is competent to pass. 7.1. He would further submit that the charge sheet is issued by the Deputy Commissioner though the order of suspension is passed by the Commissioner against the petitioner to which the petitioner has also submitted his reply. Therefore, he would submit that the writ petition be dismissed. 7.2 The learned Additional Government Advocate representing first and second respondents would only submit that the Rules and the notification being in place it is for every Corporation to follow what is depicted in notification dated 17.04.2017 and would further submit that the order of suspension is passed by the third respondent and its defense would be at the hands of the third respondent. 8. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the respective learned counsel and perused the material on record. In furtherance whereof, the only issue that falls for my consideration is that, whether the impugned order of suspension passed by the Commissioner, Corporation, suffers from want of competence? 9. The genesis of the employment of the petitioner is not in dispute that it was with the City Municipal Council, Shimogga, which has now become Shimogga Mahanagara Palike or the Corporation. The State Government on several City Municipalities becoming Corporations promulgated Rules governing their service conditions by issuance of a notification on 11.04.2011, notifying the Karnataka Municipal Corporation (Common Recruitment of Officers and Employees) Rules, 2011 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the said Rules’ for short), regulating the service conditions of the employees working in those Corporations. Rule 4 of the said Rules deals with ‘Appointing Authorities’, which reads as follows: “4. Rule 4 of the said Rules deals with ‘Appointing Authorities’, which reads as follows: “4. Appointing Authorities:-(1) Classification of various categories of posts in City Municipal Corporations shall be, (a) All the posts having pay scale of Rs.14050-25050 and above are classified as Group A. (b) All the posts having pay scale of Rs.10800 20025 and Rs.11400-21600 but below the pay scale of Rs.14050-25050 are classified as Group B. (c) All the posts having pay scale of Rs.5200-8200 to pay scale of Rs.10000-18150 but below the pay scale of Rs.10800-20025 are classified as Group C. (d) All the posts having pay scale of Rs.4800-7275 is classified as Group D. (2) For various categories of posts, in the City Municipal Corporations, the appointing authorities shall be, (a) Government, in the case of Group -A posts; (b) Director of Municipal Administration or an Officer empowered by the Government, in the case of Group -B and C posts; (c) Commissioner or an Officer empowered by Government, in the case of Group -D posts; (3) For the purpose of seniority,- (a) In respect of Group -A and B, it shall be state-wise cadre (b) In respect of all Group-C cadres it shall be statewise cadre except for Second Division Assistant, and other equivalent posts carrying pay scale upto Rs.5800-10500.” (emphasis applied) Rule 4 (2)(b) of the afore-extracted Rule, depicts the Director of the Municipal Administration of the City Municipal Corporation or an Officer empowered by the Government, for various categories of posts of Group ‘B’ and ‘C’, would be the appointing authorities to those posts in the Corporations. Therefore, in terms of the said Rules, the Director of the Municipal Administration is the Appointing Authority to Group ‘B’ and ‘C’ employees of the Corporations. Rule 10 of the said Rules adopts several Rules of the State Government which govern the service conditions of the employees of the Corporation, which are as follows: “10. Application of certain rules:-The Provisions of : 1. The Karnataka Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1957. 2. The Karnataka Civil Services (Seniority), Rules, 1957. 3. The Karnataka Civil Services Rules, 1958. 4. The Karnataka Government Servants (Family Pension) Rules, 2002. 5. The Karnataka Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1966. 6. The Karnataka Civil Services (Direct Recruitment by Competitive Examinations)(General Rules), 2006. 7. The Karnataka Civil Services (Service and Kannada language Examinations) Rules, 1974. 8. 2. The Karnataka Civil Services (Seniority), Rules, 1957. 3. The Karnataka Civil Services Rules, 1958. 4. The Karnataka Government Servants (Family Pension) Rules, 2002. 5. The Karnataka Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1966. 6. The Karnataka Civil Services (Direct Recruitment by Competitive Examinations)(General Rules), 2006. 7. The Karnataka Civil Services (Service and Kannada language Examinations) Rules, 1974. 8. The Karnataka Civil Services (Determination of Age) Act, 1974. 9. The Karnataka Civil Services (General Recruitment) Rules, 1977. 10. The Karnataka Civil Services (Probation) Rules, 1977. 11. The Karnataka Civil Services (Regulation of Promotion, Pay and Pension) Rules, 1978. 12. The Karnataka Municipal Corporations (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1991. 13. The Karnataka Civil Services (Performance Reports) Rules, 2000. 14. The Karnataka Civil Services (Appointment on compassionate grounds) Rules, 1996. 15. Karnataka Reservation of Appointment of Posts (in the Civil Services of the State) for Rural candidates Act 2000. 16. The Karnataka Determination of Seniority of the Government Servants Promoted on the Basis of Reservation (to the Posts in the Civil Services of the State) Act 2002 and other rules, made or deemed to have been made under the Karnataka State Civil Services Act, 1978, orders and special orders of Government issued from time to time, and adopted in those rules shall mutatis mutandis apply.” (emphasis applied) The first of the Rule adopted is, the KCS (CCA) Rules. 10. Placing a government servant under suspension is dealt with under Rule 10 of the KCS (CCA) Rules, the sub-rules that are germane for consideration are extracted for the purpose of ready reference: “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. 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. (8) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-rule (1) the following authorities may impose suspension pending inquiry, as herein:- (1) …… (2) Deputy Commissioners are delegated power of suspension of Group ‘C’ and Group ‘D’ service of all State Civil Services except the Karnataka Judicial Service working in the district under the immediate administrative control of any officer who does not have jurisdiction beyond the limits of the district vide Notification No. DPAR 24 SSR 75 dated 11-12-1975.” (emphasis applied) In terms of Rule 10(1) of the KCS (CCA) Rules as afore-extracted, the appointing authority or any authority to which it is sub-ordinate or any authority empowered in this behalf may place the government servant under suspension. Sub-clause (2) of Sub-rule 8 of Rule 10 of KCS (CCA) Rules, begins with a non obstante clause, reading, notwithstanding the conditions that are prescribed in sub-rule (1) of Rule 10, specifies the authorities who may place certain class of employees under suspension. In terms of Rule 10(8)(2), the Deputy Commissioner is the competent authority to place the employees of Group ‘C’ and ‘D’ of all State Civil Services except Karnataka Judicial Service, under suspension. 11. The KCS (CCA) Rules are specifically adopted by Common Recruitment Rules promulgated which govern the service conditions of the employees of the Corporation. Therefore, a conjoint reading of the Act, Recruitment Rules and the KCS (CCA) Rules, would unmistakably infer that the authority empowered to suspend an employee of Group ‘B’ and ‘C’ of even a Corporation is the Deputy Commissioner. 12. It is on the bedrock of the said Rules, the impugned order of suspension is required to be considered. It is not in dispute that the order of suspension is passed by the Commissioner of the Corporation. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner is a Group ‘C’ employee. The submission of the learned counsel appearing for the third respondent is that, by a notification dated 17.04.2017, the Commissioner of City Corporation is empowered to suspend, is unacceptable as the notification nowhere empowers the Commissioner to place an employee of Group ‘B’ and ‘C’ under suspension. The submission of the learned counsel appearing for the third respondent is that, by a notification dated 17.04.2017, the Commissioner of City Corporation is empowered to suspend, is unacceptable as the notification nowhere empowers the Commissioner to place an employee of Group ‘B’ and ‘C’ under suspension. The said notification reads as follows: “NOTIFICATION In partial modification of Notification No. UDD 58 MNE 2015, dated: 19.06.2015 Government of Karnataka in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-sections of section 508 & 509 of the Karnataka Municipal Corporation Act 1976 (Karnataka Act of 1977) the Government of Karnataka hereby delegates the powers mentioned at column (5) in respect of section mentioned at column (2) to the Deputy Commissioner, Directorate of Municipal Administration, Regional Commissioner, Corporation Commissioner, as specified in column 6, 7, 8, 9 of the table mentioned below with immediate effect. SL No Section Sl.No.in Notification No.UDD 58 MNE 2015, Dated: 19.06.2015 Subject Presen tly Power vested with Deputy Commi ssioner DMA Regional Commis sioner Corpora tion Commis sioner 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 15 90 Punish ment for Corpora tion Officers and Employ ees DMA Group C Employ ees under Rule 8(I to VIII) of KCS (CCA) Rules, 1957 up to pay scale 14,550 -26,700 (emphasis applied) Column (6) of the said notification deals with powers of the Deputy Commissioner. Item No.15 concerns punishment of officers and employees of the Corporation. Such power under the Rules of Recruitment which vested with the Director, Municipal Administration, is that which is delegated to the Deputy Commissioner in terms of the notification dated 17.04.2017. The notification is issued in exercise of power conferred under Sections 508 and 509 of the Act, 1976 and therefore, referable to statues. 13. In terms of the mandate of the notification, the power to punish is with the Deputy Commissioner. Sub-clause (2) of sub-Rule (8) of Rule 10 of the KCS (CCA) Rules, specifically empowers the Deputy Commissioner to place employees of Group ‘B’ and ‘C’ of a Corporation under suspension. Therefore, both power to place an employee under suspension and punish vests with the Deputy Commissioner on a clear reading of the aforesaid Rules. 14. The learned counsel for the third respondent would submit that the Commissioner has passed the order of suspension and has communicated the said order for post facto approval at the hands of the Deputy Commissioner. Therefore, both power to place an employee under suspension and punish vests with the Deputy Commissioner on a clear reading of the aforesaid Rules. 14. The learned counsel for the third respondent would submit that the Commissioner has passed the order of suspension and has communicated the said order for post facto approval at the hands of the Deputy Commissioner. In my opinion inter alia this is circumstance enough to belie the submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the third respondent that the Commissioner is the competent authority. If Commissioner would be the competent authority, there was no necessity to communicate the order of suspension for a post facto approval. The other submission of the learned counsel that in the event the Deputy Commissioner approves the order of suspension, it would become valid, is also unacceptable. The statutory power or power conferred by way of delegation must be exercised only by the body or officer in whom it has been confided. The Commissioner has not been delegated with the power of suspension in terms of Act, Rules or even the notification. Therefore, suspension order passed by an authority having no jurisdiction / competence, the question of it becoming operative or valid on the approval being accorded by the Deputy Commissioner would not arise as it is trite law that an order which is non est is incapable of being approved of. 15. It is also germane to notice that the charge sheet after placing the petitioner under suspension is issued by the competent authority i.e., the Deputy Commissioner. 16. The view of mine, in this regard is fortified by the order of a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of INAYATHULLA S. VS. DEPUTY CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS AND ANOTHER, ILR 1982 KAR 4283, has held as follows: “6. The power of suspension is a very powerful weapon and it is required to be exercised with all care and caution, and it is because of this it is made to vest only with the three authorities mentioned above. No other authority other than the authorities mentioned above, can exercise power of suspension. The Conservator of Forests could not have passed an order placing the petitioner under suspension, as such the impugned order, in the eye of law, has no efficacy whatsoever. Therefore the Chief Conservator of Forests could not have ratified such an order. No other authority other than the authorities mentioned above, can exercise power of suspension. The Conservator of Forests could not have passed an order placing the petitioner under suspension, as such the impugned order, in the eye of law, has no efficacy whatsoever. Therefore the Chief Conservator of Forests could not have ratified such an order. Of course, it was open for the Chief Conservator of Forests (General) to take that order into account and to pass an order independent of the impugned order, to place the petitioner under suspension; but what had been done by the Chief Conservator of Forests was to simply ratify the order. The order of suspension requires application of mind and to arrive at a decision that a disciplinary enquiry is required to be held against the official who is going to be placed under suspension. That being so, the order of ratification which does not satisfy any of the aforesaid requirements cannot even be treated as an independent order of suspension, and as such, it cannot be held to be a valid order so as to place the official under suspension at least from the date of its passing. In the instant case, except passing the aforesaid order of ratification, there is no other material placed before the Court that the Chief Conservator of Forests on the basis of the materials placed before him is of the view that there is a case for holding a departmental enquiry. Under these circumstances, the order passed by the 2nd respondent is liable to be quashed.” (emphasis applied) In the light of the facts obtaining in the case at hand, the Act, Rules, the notification and the enunciation of law in the afore-extracted order, would all lead to an unmistakable conclusion that the Commissioner is not the competent authority to place the petitioner under suspension and such an order becomes non est in the eye of law and a non est order is incapable of being approved. Therefore, the impugned order warrants appropriate interference. 17. For the aforesaid reasons, the following ORDER a. The writ petition is allowed. b. The order dated 09.02.2021, bearing No.109911-EMP/EST-1-069/16-17 (78087/16-17), is quashed. c. The petitioner shall be entitled to all consequential benefits that would flow from the quashing of the order of suspension. Therefore, the impugned order warrants appropriate interference. 17. For the aforesaid reasons, the following ORDER a. The writ petition is allowed. b. The order dated 09.02.2021, bearing No.109911-EMP/EST-1-069/16-17 (78087/16-17), is quashed. c. The petitioner shall be entitled to all consequential benefits that would flow from the quashing of the order of suspension. At this stage, the learned counsel appearing for the third respondent would submit that the respondent would intend to challenge this order before the Division Bench and would seek stay of this order for two weeks. This Court considering the Act, Rules and the notification has held the order of suspension as non est and nullity as it is passed by an incompetent authority. Therefore, I decline to accede to the submission of the learned counsel appearing for the third respondent seeking stay of this order for a period of two weeks.