S. C. Mathur, J. - (1.) Inspite of the fact that notice of this petition was served upon the learned counsel for the State on 14 January 1988, he has not been able to obtain instructions. We, accordingly, proceed to decide this petition on the basis of averments made in the petition.
(2.) The petition is directed against the order, dated 23 September 1987, annexure 7, whereby the petitioner has been placed under suspension. The petitioner's case is that his appointing authority is Regional Food Controller, while the impugned order of suspension has been passed by the Commissioner, Food and Civil Supplies, Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow. The petitioner was holding the post of Marketing Inspector.
(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon rule 49A of the Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules tor submitting that the delegation of power could be only in favour of officer subordinate to the petitioner's appointing authority while the Commissioner, who has passed the impugned order is higher in rank. In Tara Chandra v. Director of Horticulture and others, 1986 (4) LCD 7 , a Division Bench of this Court has taken the view that an order of suspension can be made only by an authority specified in rule 49A. In the absence of any counter-affidavit, the State Counsel has not been able to substantiate that the Commissioner had the requisite authority to pass the impugned order.;