- (1.) The petitioner was employed as a class IV employee in the Narcotics Department and posted as a Sepoy in the Opium Factory at Ghazipur. Some time in the year 1962, according to the petitioner, against his will and without his consent, his services were transferred and placed at the disposal of the Central Excise Department. After the transfer of his services to the Central Excise Department, he was ordered to join duties at Aliganj. It appears that the petitioner did not comply with the order and never foined his duties at Aliganj. He was, consequently, charge-sheeted and, after an inquiry, an order was passed by the Assistant Collector, Central Excise, Farrukhabad removing the petitioner from service. Aggrieved by the order of his removal from service, he appealed to the President of India. By means of communication dated 2nd July 1970 from an Under Secretary to the Government of India in the Department of Revenue and Insurance, addressed to the Collector, Central Excise, Kanpur, of which a copy was endorsed to the petitioner, the Collector, Central Exise was informed that since the petitioners' lien in the Narcotics Department had not been terminated nor had he been permanently absorbed in the Central Excise Department, the Assistant Collector, Central Excise, Farrukhabad was not competent under R. 20 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 to remove him from service. The communication mentioned above went on to state that the order passed by the Assistant Collector, Central Excise against the petitioner was illegal and void, and the President had, accordingly, set aside the same on technical grounds without going into the merits of the case. The letter of the Under Secretary informed the Collector, Central Excise that the case against the petitioner was being remitted for de novo proceedings in accordance with the prescribed procedure from the charge-sheet stage. It was emphasised that during the de novo proceedings, the provisions of rule 20 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules may be observed.. The letter went on to state that the period intervening the order of removal of the petitioner from service and the order passed by the appellate authority was to be adjusted as duty for the purposes of the petitioner's pay and allowance etc. After the purport of the appellate order was communicated to the Collector, Central Excise and the petitioner, a fresh charge-sheet dated 10-9-1973 was served on the petitioner intimating to him that an inquiry was proposed to be held against him under R. 14 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965. Shortly, after the charge-sheet, was served on the petitioner, he presented this petition in this court on 24th May 1974. On the allegations set out above, the petitioner prays for a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding opposite party No. 1, the Superintendent of Central Excise, Kasganj, Etah not to proceed with the inquiry. There is a further prayer for a direction to the opposite parties to reinstate the petitioner in service.
(2.) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has contended that in spite of the appellate order, by means of which the initial order of his removal from service was set aside, the instant proceedings are still being taken against him in disregard of R. 20 (1) of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules. It was submitted that while the proviso to sub-rule (1) of R. 20 requires that if the transferee department commences disciplinary proceedings against an erring employee, the authority concerned shall forthwith inform the authority which lent the services of the Government servant about the commencement of such proceedings in the petitioner's case no such information has been conveyed to the Narcotics Department, which is the parent department of the petitioner and in which he still continues to hold a lien. Rule 20, on which reliance is placed by the learned counsel, as far as relevant for our purposes, runs as follows: "20. Provisions regarding officer lent to State Government, etc. (1) where the services of a Government servant are lent by one department to another department......... the borrowing authority shall have the powers of the appointing authority for the purpose of placing such Government servant under suspension and of the disciplinary authority for the purpose of conducting a disciplinary proceeding against him : Provided that the borrowing authority shall forthwith inform the authority which lent the services of the Government servant (hereinafter in this ru]e referred to as the 'lending authority') of the circumstances leading to the order of suspension of such Government servant or the commencement of the disciplinary proceeding, as the case may be......... ........" A mere reading of the proviso to sub- rule (1) of R. 20 as extracted above discloses that all that the borrowing authority is required to do is to inform the Department which lent the services of the Government servant that the Government servant has been placed under suspension, and, in the event of disciplinary proceedings being commenced against him, of the circumstances leading to the commencement of such proceedings. The informations contemplated by the proviso are in respect of suspension orders and the commencement of proceedings which have already taken effect. The proviso does not require; that the borrowing department, before passing an order of suspension or before the commencement of disciplinary proceedings shouid inform the parent department either that a suspension order is going to be passed or that disciplinary proceedings are proposed to be commenced against the Government servant. The requirement of information being given to the parent Department is not a condition precedent to the passing of an order of suspension or to the commencement of disciplinary proceedings against him. It may further be noticed that even on information being received by the parent department of the passing of an order of suspension of a government servant whose services had been lent, or of commencement of disciplinary proceedings, it has no authority to recall the suspension order or to quash the proceedings which have been commenced by the Department with which his services are on loan. Disregard of the requirement of the proviso directing the sending of information does not render either a suspension order or a disciplinary proceedings already commenced illegal or void. In this view of the matter, assuming that the Central Excise Department, which is taking disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner, has omitted to communicate to the parent department of the commencement of the disciplinary proceedings against him, such proceedings are not vitiated. Compliance with the proviso under discussion, in our judgment is purely directory. Under the circumstances, the petitioner is not entitled to the reliefs prayed for. His petition, in our opinion, has no force, and is hereby dismissed. The opposite parties shall be entitled to one set of the costs from the petitioner. Interim order, if any, is hereby vacated.;