JUDGMENT
K.A. Abdul Gafoor, J.
1. Competence to issue Ext.P1order of suspension dated 24.6.2005 was the moot question raised in the Writ Petition which led to this Writ Appeal. The said order was passed by respondent No. 2, Deputy Commissioner of Land Revenue placing the petitioner, an Upper Division Clerk under suspension pending disciplinary action. The petitioner prayed for reinstatement in Ext.P5 representation and questioned the competence of respondent No. 2 in Ext.P6 petition, both addressed to the officer just above respondent No. 2, namely the Commissioner for Land Revenue/Necessarily, that shall have to be construed as an appeal under Rule 22 of the Kerala Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeals) Rules, 1960 which provides for an appeal against an order of suspension. Rather than the first respondent deciding Exts.P5 and P6 by himself, he forwarded the same to the second respondent and he decided his competence and passed Ext.P7 orders to the effect that he was competent to pass Ext.Pl order of suspension. This was impugned. The learned single Judge found that consequent on abolition of the Revenue Board as per the Board of Revenue Abolition Act, 1996, a notification was issued under Section 4(1) thereof. Annexure-A3 is the said notification. It empowers the Land Revenue Commissioner as the appointing authority for posts other than Tahsildar and Deputy Tahsildar, in place of what is provided in that regard in G.O.(P)No. 123/93/RD dated 8.3.1993, viz., Annexure-A1 amendment to the Special Rules. So the Deputy commissioner did not have the jurisdiction and competence to pass Ext.P1 suspension order. The learned single Judge observed that no order empowering the Deputy Commissioner to place an officer like the petitioner under suspension was brought to his notice.
2. It is contended by the Government Pleader assailing the said judgment, that Annexure-Al is the amendment to the special rules. It empowered the Secretary Board of Revenue to exercise the powers of appointing authority in respect of all categories of posts born on the Kerala Revenue Ministerial Subordinate Service including the post of U.D. Clerks. On abolition of the Board of Revenue, as per the Kerala Board of Revenue Abolition Act, 1996, the post of Secretary, Board of Revenue ceased to exist. Consequently, Ext.R2(a) order dated 29.6.1998 was issued redesignating the post of Secretary, Board of Revenue as Additional Commissioner of Land Revenue, with effect from 1.7.1998. Therefore Additional Commissioner of Land Revenue shall be the appointing authority in respect of the petitioner. Still later as per Ext.R2(c) the post of Additional Commissioner of Land Revenue was redesignated as the Deputy Land Revenue Commissioner. Consequently, Deputy Land Revenue Commissioner shall be the appointing authority under Rule 9 of the Kerala Civil Services (Classification Control & Appeal) Rules. The appointing authority is empowered to place an incumbent under suspension. Therefore Ext.P1 order passed by the Deputy Commissioner placing the petitioner under suspension is well justified. It is submitted that the entry regarding the appointing authority appearing in Annexure-A3 notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Kerala Board of Revenue Abolition Act, 1996 is only a mistake.
3. Annexure-A3 is a notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Kerala Board of Revenue Abolition Act, 1996. By reason of this statutory provision Government is enabled to issue a notification to vest the powers conferred on the Board of Revenue or any member of the Board of Revenue upon the Commissioner of Land Revenue or District Collector as the case may be. It does not enable the Government to confer the powers that had been exercised by the Secretary, Board of Revenue in terms of Annexure-A1 amendment to the special rules. The Secretary, Board of Revenue was notified as appointing authority in Annexure-A1 amendments to the Special Rules, only on the strength of the proviso to Rule 9 of the Kerala Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeals) Rules, which reads under.
9. Appointing Authorities:-. All appointments to State and subordinate Services shall be made by the Government:
Provided that the Government may, by general or special orders or rules and subject to such conditions as they may specify, delegate to any other authority the power to make such appointments.
4. By reason of this provision appointments to State or Subordinate Services shall have to be made by Government, and Government can by general or special order or rules delegate that power to any other authority. It is in this way, that by Annexure-A1 rules the Government had delegated the power of appointment to the Secretary, Board of Revenue. When Board of Revenue was abolished consequent on enactment of the Kerala Board of Revenue Abolition Act, 1996, the post of Secretary ceased to exist. That means the delegatee ceased to exist. When the delegatee had ceased to exist, the power delegated reverts back to the delegator namely the Government. There was no further re-delegation to any one else as per any competent orders in terms of the proviso to Rule 9 extracted supra. A mere redesignation of an officer as contained in Annexure-R2(a) or (c) cannot have any relevance in this regard. Ext.R2(b) is only an order for the smooth administrative functioning of the Board of Revenue, empowering Additional Commissioner as the drawing and disbursing officer. That cannot amount to delegation in terms of the proviso to Rule 9 which had been statutorily conferred on the Secretary, Board of Revenue, by Government, in annexure-A1. Necessarily that also will not enable the Deputy Commissioner to exercise the power of the appointing authority until a due delegation comes in terms of the proviso to Rule 9 of the Kerala Civil Services (Classification Control and Appeal) Rules.
5. The power to place an officer under suspension conferred by Rule 10 of the said rules is on the appointing authority or any other authority to which it is subordinate. The Deputy Commissioner cannot be a subordinate to Government. In such circumstances the suspension as per Ext.P1 is incompetent. Appeal, therefore, fails and is dismissed.
6. At this juncture the learned Government Pleader made a submission that this was the practice followed in the Revenue Department, since the enforcement of the Kerala Board of Revenue Abolition Act, 1996. Therefore much administrative difficulties may occur in the revenue department with regard to disciplinary matters. We find extreme force in this submission. Any how, except the petitioner nobody has so far challenged the suspension orders attributing incompetence on the authority who passed the same, on the aforesaid ground. In such circumstances, whatever order passed which had not been duly challenged under appropriate proceedings will remain as such.