Jagdish Sahai, J. - (1.) The petitioner N.D. Tyagi was appointed as Sub-Inspector of Police on 1-3-1951 in the U.P. Subordinate Police Service. He was sent on deputation to the Government of India in the Central Intelligence Bureau where he was promoted to the post of Assistant Central Intelligence Officer Grade (I) in 1968. The period of his deputation was to expire sometime in April 1970. A little before that period was to expire the petitioner was asked if he agreed to the extension of his deputation for two years more. He agreed to this. This period is to expire in April 1972. He has, however, been charge-sheeted by Sri O.P. Tandon, Central Intelligence Officer, Lucknow, and has been put under enquiry under Rule 14 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1965, (hereinafter referred to as the Rules). For some time he participated in the enquiry, but later on felt aggrieved by the procedure adopted at the enquiry and has now moved this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
(2.) The petition is founded on several grounds including the one that the person who has initiated the enquiry and suspended the petitioner is neither the petitioner's appointing authority or any authority to which the appointing authority is subordinate nor he is a disciplinary authority or any other authority empowered in that behalf by the President by general or special order.
(3.) One of the questions that arises for consideration is whether in view of the language of Rule 3 (1) (e) of the Rules the present enquiry against the petitioner and his suspension is competent. Since this question was not specifically raised in the writ petition and was taken for the first time when the hearing commenced, I adjourned the hearing in order to enable Sri K. S, Verma the learned Chief Standing Counsel, to meet this point and on his request have got the case listed today for hearing. Rule 3 of the Rules reads: "(1) These rules shall apply to every Government servant including every civilian Government servant in the Defence Services, but shall not apply to- (a) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (b) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (c) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (d) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (e) any person for whom special provision is made, in respect of matters covered by these rules, by or under any law for the time being in force or by or under any agreement entered into by or with the previous approval of the President before or after the commencement of these rules, in regard to matters covered by such special provisions." The petitioner is a member of the Subordinate Police Station, U.P., and retains his lien on that post. He is in the employment of the State of U.P. and is only temporarily on deputation with the Government of India. He admittedly is not the servant of Government of India and has no lien on the post of Assistant Central Intelligence Officer Grade (I). Once he reverts to U.P. he will cease to hold that post. It is clear that a police officer in U.P. can be punished under the provisions of the Police Act .(Section 7) and the U.P. Police Regulations. It appears to me that the petitioner, is, therefore, a person for whom special provision is made in respect of the matters covered by the Rules. The Rules provide for suspension, disciplinary action and penalties. Admittedly with regard to Sub-Inspector of Police in the employment of U.P. Government all these matters are provided for by the U.P. Police Regulations as also by Section 7 of the Police Act. The petitioner's case, therefore, falls under clause (1) (e) of Rule 3 of the Rules. In this view of the matter, it must be held that the present proceedings against him are not competent.;