ORDER : 1. The petitioner is before this court calling in question an order dated 28.7.2023 by which the petitioner comes to be placed under suspension invoking power of placing the petitioner under suspension under the rules. 2. Heard Sri.Vijay R Sarathy, learned counsel for the petitioner; Sri.Rajasekhar Buraji, learned counsel for respondent No.1 and Sri.Santosh B Malagoudar, learned counsel for respondent No.2. 3. Facts adumbrated are as follows: The petitioner is an employee of Karnataka Rural Infrastructure Development Limited (hereinafter referred to as KRIDL for short). The petitioner is appointed in the year 1988 as an Assistant Engineer in KRIDL and at the relevant point in time was working as an Executive Engineer (In-charge) at Kalaburagi. The Lokayuktha draws up a source report on the basis of the places of work of the petitioner throughout his career from the year 1988 to 2020 and registers a crime for offences punishable under Section 13(1)(b) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 alleging possession of assets disproportionate to the known source of income. The issue in the lis does not concern the veracity of the crime so registered against the petitioner, but the aftermath of the registration of the crime. Pursuant to the registration of the crime and two months after the conduct of search, the Lokayuktha recommends that the petitioner be placed under suspension and based upon the said recommendation an order is passed by the Competent Authority of KRIDL placing the petitioner under suspension. The placement of the petitioner under suspension is what has driven the petitioner to this Court in the subject petition. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would contend with vehemence that the Competent Authority has not placed the petitioner under suspension on independent application of mind. It has only followed the dictate of the Lokayuktha. It is his submission that it is therefore unsustainable in law, as in terms of the Rules, the Disciplinary Authority is required to apply its mind and then pass an order of placement of an employee under suspension. He would seek quashment of the said order. 5. Per-contra, learned counsel for the respondent Sri.Rajasekhar Buraji would vehemently refute the submission contending that there is independent application of mind by the Disciplinary Authority notwithstanding the fact that the Lokayuktha has recommended/directed placing the petitioner under suspension. 6. He would seek quashment of the said order. 5. Per-contra, learned counsel for the respondent Sri.Rajasekhar Buraji would vehemently refute the submission contending that there is independent application of mind by the Disciplinary Authority notwithstanding the fact that the Lokayuktha has recommended/directed placing the petitioner under suspension. 6. Learned counsel Sri.Santosh Malagoudar appearing for respondent No.2 would only submit with regard to the report and the communication that is made by the Lokayuktha. 7. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the respective learned counsel and have perused the material on record. 8. The afore-narrated facts are not in dispute, as they at this juncture, lie in a narrow compass. Before embarking upon consideration of the issue on its merit, I deem it appropriate to notice the power of placement under suspension of an employee of KRIDL by the Disciplinary Authority. Suspension is governed under Rule 95 of the Discipline and Appeal Rules of KRIDL. It reads as follows: Rule 95 SUSPENSION: a) The appointing authority may place an employee under suspension: i) Where a disciplinary proceeding against is contemplated or is pending: or ii) Where a case against him in respect of any criminal offence is under investigation or trial. b) An order of suspension made under this rule may be revoked by the authority which passed it. c) Where on the conclusion of any inquiry against an employee, the authority competent to impose punishment; i) make an order fully exhonerating or acquitting him, the period during which he was under suspension pending Inquiry shall be deemed to be a period of duty for which the employee shall be entitled to full pay and allowances as if he has not been placed under suspension. ii) makes an order imposing any penalty other than a penalty of compulsory retirement or dismissal from service, the employee shall be paid for the period of suspension such proportion of his pay and allowances as the said authority may under its discretion specify and where no such proportion is specified the employee shall be paid 50% of his basic pay plus other allowances in full. The period of suspension shall count as 'duty' unless the said authority otherwise directs. The period of suspension shall count as 'duty' unless the said authority otherwise directs. iii) makes an order imposing the penalty of compulsory retirement or dismissal, shall be paid for the period of suspension such proportion of his pay and allowances, as the said authority may in its discretion specify and where no such proportion is specified, the employees shall be paid subsistence allowance and the period of suspension shall not count as on duty. d) During the period of suspension an employee shall be paid subsistence allowance at 50% of his basic pay and other allowances based on such payment. The subsistence allowance gets increased to 75% provided the suspension period extends beyond months. It however the cause of extending suspension period is due to non co-operation of the official then the subsistence allowance shall be gradually reduced by 15% for every 3 months and ultimately additional disciplinary proceeding will be initiated on the suspended official for a final removal from service. Rule 95 mandates and permits the Appointing Authority to place an employee under suspension under manifold circumstances. One such circumstance is where a case against an employee in respect of a criminal offence is under investigation or trial. Rule 95 though does not in so many words directs application of mind by the Disciplinary Authority to place an employee under suspension, it is trite law that the power of suspension is to be exercised only after due application of mind, as in certain circumstances, suspension can become worse than a penalty. On the bedrock of the said principle, the case at hand requires consideration. 9. As observed hereinabove, it is the power of the Appointing Authority to place an employee under suspension, an employee of KRIDL. In the case at hand, the petitioner is placed under suspension by the impugned order. Whether the impugned order is a product of application of mind is required to be noticed. The order reads as follows: 10. The preamble of the order is dedicated to the communication from the IGP to the 1st respondent. All that the Disciplinary Authority would observe OTHER LANGUAGE Except saying the issue is examined with care, no other depiction of application of mind is demonstrable in the order. Therefore, on the ground that the order of suspension, is on the face of it, a product of non-application of mind, it is rendered unsustainable. All that the Disciplinary Authority would observe OTHER LANGUAGE Except saying the issue is examined with care, no other depiction of application of mind is demonstrable in the order. Therefore, on the ground that the order of suspension, is on the face of it, a product of non-application of mind, it is rendered unsustainable. It is trite law that application of mind is discernible, if reasons are recorded in writing. Reasons to be recorded in writing would become necessary in every order be it administrative, quasi-judicial or judicial, failing which, it would become an arbitrary exercise of power. The power to place an employee under suspension borders upon the power of a penal provision. Therefore, it requires to be passed on independent application of mind and not on the dictate of any outside agency. 11. In the light of the impugned order being a product of the dictate of Lokayuktha, it is rendered unsustainable. The unsustainability would lead to its obliteration. The obliteration would lead to success of the writ petition, albeit, in part, as liberty will have to be reserved to the Disciplinary Authority to pass appropriate orders, in accordance with law. For the afore-said reasons, I pass the following: ORDER i) The writ petition is allowed. ii) The order dated 28.07.2023, bearing No. K.R.I.D.L./Lok/I.N.V(G)/G5/CR-05/2023/2023-24(LOK-124),vide Annexure-A stands quashed. iii) Liberty is reserved to the respondent-KRIDL to pass appropriate orders, if need arises, invoking Section 95 of the Rules bearing in mind the observations made in the course of the order.