.^< B € CORAM: HON'BLE SHRi RAJEEV GUPTA, CJ & HOiSi'BLE SHR! SUNIL KUMAR SINHA, J. Surendra Singh, S»'oShri Shivpujan Singh, aged about 44 years, Block Coordinator, Rajiv Gandhi Shiksha Mission R/o P.W.D. Colony, Near Rest House, Pendra Road, Distt. Bilaspur (C.G.) 2. 3. State of Chhattisgarh Through the Sscretary, Education Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur(C.G.) The Collector, Biiaspt-ir-eum- District Mission Director, Rajiv Gandhi Shiksha Mission, Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan, Bllaspur (C.G.) The Chief Executive Officer, Panchayat, Biiaspur (C.G.) Zila Writ appeal. under_Section 2(1) of the Chhattisgarh Hiah Court (appeal to Division Bench) Act 2008 read with rule 157(10) ofthe Hjgh Court of Chhattisoarh Rules. 2005 Present: Shri P. Diwakar, learned Senior counsel with Shri K.S. Pawar, iearned counse! forthe appe!!ant. Shri M.P.S. Bhatia, leamed Deputy Government Advocate for the State/respondsnt No.1 . Shri A.S. Kachhawaha, learned counsel for respondents No.2 & 3. JUDGMENT (07th February, 2008] jlin',li .1 Ajepuoosg JSLiBiH asodjndiiins^i lusuiujaAoo ui jatseujpeei-i se psiujodde SBM oym jsuoiiiisd/iueiisdde 941 (s) •uoisusdsns jspun peoeid sem jeuoiiiisdflueiisdde 3i)i AqejaqM (uosiiad IUM 34t ui e/d - ajnxsuuy} ZOOZ-tO-SZ PSIBP •ISP-IO silt 10 euiysenb 6u!>)S8S SBM sou5}sqns ui sny} jeuoiiiiadflUBiisdde aqi (t?) ,/eseo sijl p ssoue^sujnojio pue sioe^ 341 ui jadojd pue }il Lussp Aeiu ynoo 3|0,,uoj-) Sll)} L|0!t|AA 'JSUOI}!l8d 34} 0} u9Ai6 sq OS|B Aeuu (s^eiisj jsqp Auv g'^ •)sod luessjd SIL| uo J3uo!t!t8d 34} eieisuiej A]Steip9iuLU! 0} pstOSJip eq siuapuodssj si<} 'ieyi g'/. "£'ON tuspuodsay - jsoiyo sMtnosxg ^3!40 34) Aq psssed (e/d-ajnxauuv) iOOZ-W-QZ pstep jspjo psuBnduii 8i<} ysenb/spise iss 0} psseeid eq A|pui>| Aeuj pnoo siq.uoH siyi '}eL|i i.'^. ;SJ8!|SJ 6UIMO||Oj sqi JOj sAejd jsuoitiied sqi 'sqdejBejed BuioSsjoj ui peuoiiusiu SB spunoj6 pue spe^ BIJI jo MSIA u|,, •sjeifsj OUIMOIIO^ aq) joj uoitiisd }UM sqi pa|U jauoiiiiad/iueiiedde 341 (g) •ZOOZ/Z99Z •ON (S)'d'AA ui pessed ZOOZ-90-60 P3}eP luauiDpnf psuSndLui 34} IsuieBB leadde }UM siLf} peiy sey LjSuig ejpusjns-iueiisddv fe) •ssiijed eqi joj issunoo PSUJBBI pJB8|-| T'O 't Aq psssed sem iJnoo sqi 10 lueujSpnf BUIMODO^ siji ^ z S9S^;:^» ^^^&AKi »•••«»* 'if^ \ s School, Pendra, District Bilaspur, at the time of his suspension vide order dated 28-04-2007, was working on deputation as Block Coordtnator, Rajiv Gandhi Shiksha Mission, Block - Marwahi, District Bilaspur. After a preliminary enquiry, charges of dereliction of duties and serious irreaularities in aovernment work were found prima facie proved against the petitioner and, therefore, respondent No. 3 passed the impugned order dated 28-04-2007 ptacing the appellant/petitioner under suspension. (6) The submlssions advanced on behatf of the appeilant/ petitioner did not find favour with the writ Court resulting in dismissal of the appeilant's writ petition vide order dated 09-05-2007. (7) Shri P. Diwakar, learned Senior counse! for the appellant vehemently argued that the order impugned in the writ petition of appeilant's suspension is ex facie iliegal as no departmental inquiry was contemplated against the appellanVpetitioner and the impugned order of suspension was not passed by the appointing authority of the appellanVpetitioner as contemplated under Rule 9 of Madhya Pradesh Civil Service (Classificatlon, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules, 1966"). (8) Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, supported the impugned judgment and con(ended that though in the impugned order of suspension it is not mentioned that depariimental inquiry was contemplated against the appeltant/ petitloner; but in fact, a departmental inquiry was initiated agalnst him. Learned counset further submitted that as appeliant/petitioner was on deputation all disciplinary control over him was wlth the borrowing department. Rule 9 of the Rules, 1966 reads as follows: "9(1) The appointing authority or any authority to which it is subordinate or the disciplinary authority orany other authority empowered in that behalf by the Governor by general or special order, may place a Government servant under suspension— (a) where a disciplinary proceeding against him is contemplated or is pending, or (b) where a case against him in respect of any criminal offence is under investigation, inquiry of trial: [Provided that a Government Servant shall invariably be placed under suspension when a challan for a criminal offence involving corruption or other moral turpitude is filed aqainst him;] Provided further that where the order of suspension is made by an authority lower than the appointing authority, such authority shal! forthwith report to the appointing authority the circumstances in which She order was made. (2) A Government servant shall be deemed to have been placed under suspension by an order of appointlng authority— (a) with effect from the date of his detention, if he is detained in custody whether on a criminal charge or otherwise for a period exceeding forty- eight hours; .-^ ^sS'A'3 ^ ^^d (b) with effect from the date of his conviction, if, in the event of convtetion for an offence, he is sentenced to a term of imprisonment exceeding forty-eight hours and is not forthwith dismissed or removed or compulsorily retired consequent to such conviction." (10) !t is true that a govemment servant can be placed under suspension under Ruie 9 of the Rules,1966 by the appointing authority and the other prescribed authorlties.That too only in the eventualities contemplated in Rule 9(1) of the Rules, 1966 i.e. where a disciptinary proceeding is either pending against him or is contemplated; or where a case against him in respect of any crimina! offence is under investigation, inquiry oftrial. (11) ln the present case, an inquiry after passing of the suspension order was initiated against the appellanVpetitioner. A charge-sheet was issued and the appellant/petitioner submitted his repiy to the said charge-sheet. In our considered view, neither Rule 9(1) of the Rules, 1966 nor any other provision of tawrequire that in the order of suspension it should be mentioned that a departmenta! inquiry is either pending against the appeitant/petitioner or is contemplated. The only requirement of Rute 9 is that either departmental inquiry should be pending against the appellanVpetitioner or it should be in contemplation. We, therefore, do notfind any substance'in the first submission of learned senior counsel for the appellanV petitioner. &BBE?^ (12) The other submission of learned Senior Counsel for the appellant/petitloner that the order of suspension of the appellant / petitioner is bad in law as it was not passed by his appointing authority, deserves an outright rejection in view of the speciflc provision contained in Rule 20 of the Rules, 1966 which reads as follows: "20. Provisions regarding officers lent to the Linion or any other State Govemment or any subordinate or local authority, etc.- (1) Where the services of a Government servant are lent by one department to another department or to the Union Government or to any other State Government or any authority subordinate thereto or to a loca! 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 ths purpose of placing such Government servant under suspension and of the disciplinary authorlty for the purpose of conducting a disciplinary prQCcSdlrig SQsinst him^ Provided that the borrowing authority shall fcrthwith inform the authority which lend the services of the Government servant (hereinafter in this rule 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. (2) In the light of the findings in the disciplinary proceedings conducted against the Government servant: (i) if the borrowing authority is of a opinion that any of the penalties specified in clauses (i) to (iv) of rule 10 should be imposed on the Government serv'ant, it may, after consuttation with the lending authority, make such orders on the case as it deems necessary; • Provided that in the event bf a difference of oplnion between the borrowing authority and the iending authority, the serv-ices of the afc*-% Government servant shall be replaced at the dlsposa! of the lending authority; (ii) if the borrowing authority is of the opinion that a penarty specified in rule 11 should be imposed on any member of class IV Government serv'ant, it may impose sucti penalty without consulting the lending authority; (iii) if the borrowing authority is of the opinion that any of the penalties specifled in clauses (v) to (ix) of rule 10 should be imposed on the Governffient servant, It shal! replace his services at the disposal of the lending autiiority and transmit to it ths procseuings of the inquiry and thereupon the lending authority, may, ii it 13 the ulscipiinary 3uthority pass such orders thereon as it may deem necessary, or, If it is not the discipiinary' authority submit the case to the disciplinary authority, which shal! pass such orders on the case as it may deem necessary; Provided that before passing any such order the disciplinary authorlty shali comply with the provisions ofsub-rules (3) and (4) of rule 15." (13) On a bare reading of the above quoted Rule 20 of the Rules, 1966, it becomes apparent that in the case of a Government servant on deputation the borrowing authority has also all the powers of 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. As the appeHant / petitioner admittedly was working on deputation as Block Coordinator, Rajiv Gandhi Shiksha Mission, Block - Marwahi, District Bilaspur, respondent No.3 - Chief Executive Officer was fully empowered by virtue of Rule 20 of the Rule 1966 to pass the order of appellant's / petitioner's suspension. The submissionadvanced by learned ^M Subbu BS« Senior Counsel for the appellant othenvjse also sounds iltogical as the acceptance of the same would result in a sltuation where the borrowing department wiii not have any disciptinary control over a Government Servant, who has come to that department on deputation. The impugned order reveals that the fact of suspension of the appellant /petitioner was intimated to the appellant's appointing authority which fulfills the legai requirement as contempiated in the Rules,1966 . (14) For the foregoing reasons, we do not find any inflrmity erther in the impugned judgment whereby the appellant's writ petition was dismissed or in the order dated 28-04-2007 impugned in the writ petition whereby the appellant/petitioner was placed under suspension. (15) The writ appeal, therefore, is liable to be dismissed and is herebv dismissed. (16) No order as to costs. Sd/- ChiefJustice Sd/- Sunii Kumar Sinba — £>'