Skip to content


V. Muthuswamy Vs. Senior Deputy Accountant General, (Admn.) - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectService
CourtChennai High Court
Decided On
Reported in(1975)1MLJ187
AppellantV. Muthuswamy
RespondentSenior Deputy Accountant General, (Admn.)
Excerpt:
- .....authority. the question for consideration is, whether rule 20 can apply to such a situation. the rule states:where the services of a government servant are lent by one department to another department or to a state government or an authority subordinate thereto or to a local or other authority (hereinafter in this rule referred to as the borrowing authority') 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....in my opinion, this rule will apply so long as the government servant concerned is working under the borrowing authority and once the deputation has come to an end and the government has.....
Judgment:
ORDER

M.M. Ismail, J.

1. The petitioner states that he was working as a Section Officer in the office of the Accountant-General, II, Madras, and his services were lent to the Madras State Housing Board under Foreign Service Rules, 1955, and that he was working in the Madras State Housing Board from 26th October, 1965 to 25th October, 1966. With reference to the petitioner availing of leave concession and obtaining a sum of Rs. 578.40 on that account, when he was working in the State Housing Board, the respondent herein issued a notice on 17th October, 1969 proposing to conduct an enquiry in respect of an alleged irregularity arising out of the receipt of the said money. The petitioner contends that the respondent had no jurisdiction to conduct the enquiry and prays for the issue of a writ of prohibition restraining the respondent from proceeding with, the departmental enquiry against the petitioner pursuant to the said memorandum dated 17th October, 1969.

2. The learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that under Rule 20 of Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965, it is only the borrowing authority which is competent to initiate proceedings with reference to an irregularity committed by the petitioner, when he was in the service of the borrowing authority, As I have pointed out already, according to the petitioner, he received the amount when he was in the service of the Madras State Housing Board and the notice was issued by the respondent after he came back to the parent department or the lending authority. The question for consideration is, whether Rule 20 can apply to such a situation. The rule states:

Where the services of a Government servant are lent by one Department to another Department or to a State Government or an authority Subordinate thereto or to a local or other authority (hereinafter in this rule referred to as the borrowing authority') 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....

In my opinion, this rule will apply so long as the Government servant concerned is working under the borrowing authority and once the deputation has come to an end and the Government has come back to the lending authority or the parent department, there is no scope for applying this rule. This is made clear by a combination of the two powers, namely, the power to place the Government servant under suspension and the power to conduct disciplinary proceedings against him. Once the deputation of a Government servant comes to an end, he comes back to the parent department and there is no question of the borrowing authority placing him under suspension and the borrowing authority initiating disciplinary proceedings against him thereafter. Consequently, on the face of it, Rule 20 can have no application to the petitioner's case, in view of the fact that he has come back to the parent department after 25th October, 1966 and the proceedings have been initiated only thereafter. Hence, the writ petition fails and is dismissed.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //