Judgment

SIKRI, C.J.I.: - This is an appeal by certificate granted by the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir from its judgment dated October 31, 1966 allowing the writ petition filed by the petitioner-respondent, M. S. Farooqi of the Indian Police Service, and restraining the State of Jammu and Kashmir, appellant before us, from proceeding against him under the Jammu and Kashmir Government Servants Prevention of Corruption (Commission) Act, 1962 - hereinafter referred to as the Commission Act. The High Court held that the members of an All India Service serving in a State are governed by the All India Services Act, 1951, and the Rules made thereunder, and the Commission Act was not applicable to them. The High Court further held that the Commission Act was hit by Art. 14 of the Constitution as "there is a clear discrimination between the members of All India Services of the same Service posted in the State inasmuch as inquiry against the former for acts of corruption is to be held under the Central Act and the rules made thereunder while against the latter for the same acts of corruption enquiry is to be held under the Commission Act, the provisions of which are far more drastic than the Central Act and the rules made thereunder."

2. We may briefly state the relevant facts which necessitated the filing of the writ petition. The respondent before us. M. S. Farooqi hereinafter referred to as the petitioner, is a member of the India Police Service which is an All India Service. He is borne on the Jammu & Kashmir cadre. On March 12, 1964, an anonymous complaint was received by the Commission, set up under the Commission Act. On March 20, 1964, the Commission asked for a report from the Deputy Inspector General of Police. The Deputy Inspector General of Police (Anti Corruption Organisation) raised the question of the jurisdiction of the Commission. The Commission, however, held that the Commission Act was applicable in its entirety to Government servants belonging to Jammu and Kashmir cadre of the All India Services. The objection raised by the Investigating Agency was thus overruled. The Investigating Agency was directed to continue investigation of the case and submit a report. Thereupon the petitioner filed the writ petition in the High Court challenging the jurisdiction of the Commission. As stated above, the High Court allowed the petition, but later granted certificate of fitness and the appeal filed on behalf of the State of Jammu and Kashmir is now before us.

3. The learned counsel for the State contends that:

(1) The Commission Act is in pith and substance a law in respect of corruption of Government servants of Jammu and Kashmir and only incidentally deals with members of the All India Services, and is therefore valid in its entirety.

(2) If such a legislation is valid, the Act is not discriminatory because all servants of Jammu and Kashmir Government are treated alike and the same procedure applied to them for the trial of offences of corruption;

(3) There is a valid classification on the basis of territory; and

(4) In any event, the procedure under the Commission Act is not more prejudicial than that under the All India Services Act, 1951, and the rules made thereunder.

4. The first point raised by the learned counsel does not meet the real objection to the applicability of the Commission Act to members of the Indian Police Service serving in Jammu and Kashmir. This objection is that, assuming that the Commission Act is in pith and substance a law with respect to corruption of Government servants, it is repugnant to the provisions of the All India Service Act, 1951, and the All India Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1955 - hereinafter referred to as the Discipline and Appeal Rules, and it must give way to the statutory provisions.

5. It seems to us that there is force in the objection raised on behalf of the petitioner and in that view it is not necessary to decide the four points raised by the learned counsel.

6. We are he