JUDGMENT

SHINGHAL, J.:— This appeal is directed against the judgment of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana dated September 18, 1970, dismissing the appellants writ petition. As a part of the controversy in the writ petition was the subject-matter of an earlier appeal to this Court which was decided by the judgment in State of Punjab v. Khemi Ram, (1970) 2 SCR 657 = (AIR 1970 SC 214) it will be enough to state those facts which bear on the subsequent controversy.

2. Appellant Khemi Ram was employed as an officiating Assistant Registrar in the Co-operative Department of the Punjab State. His services were placed at the disposal of Himachal Pradesh Administration, on deputation, for a period of two years. He was confirmed as an Assistant Registrar in Punjab, and his period of deputation to the Himachal Pradesh Administration was extended from time to time, upto August 4, 1958, which was the date of his retirement on superannuation. It was during the period of deputation that the Himachal Pradesh Administration granted 19 days leave to the appellant preparatory to his retirement on August 4, 1958. In the mean time, some matters came to the notice of the Punjab Government which involved the appellant in embezzlement of funds, and the Punjab Government sent a telegram on July 17, 1958, to the Himachal Pradesh Administration asking it to direct the appellant to report for duty to the Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Punjab, immediately. The Punjab Government 1738 was however informed that the appellant had proceeded on leave preparatory to retirement. It therefore protested against the sanction of the leave on the ground that it could only be granted by the lending Government, and not the Himachal Pradesh Administration, and requested the Himachal Pradesh Administration to cancel the leave and to revert the appellant. That letter was sent on July 25, 1958, and was followed by an order of the punjab Government dated July 31, 1958, placing the appellant under suspension with effect from August 2, 1958. A copy of the charges which were framed against the appellant was also forwarded to him by registered post the same day. Meanwhile the Himachal Pradesh Administration cancelled the appellants leave with effect from August 2, 1958, and directed him to report for duty to the Registrar, Co- operative Societies, Punjab, on August 4, 1958. It was in those circumstances that the appellant filed a writ petition in the Punjab High Court. That Court took the view that the order of the appellants suspension was not valid as it actually reached him after his retirement. The State of Punjab filed an appeal to this Court, which was allowed, and it was held that as the order of suspension was passed and was communicated to the appellant before August 4, 1958, it was effective from July 31, 1958, and was a valid order. It is that judgment which has been reported in State of Punjab v. Khemi Ram, (AIR 1970 SC 214) to which reference has been made above. By its aforesaid judgment this Court remanded the case to the High Court with the direction that it should decide three other questions which had been left undecided because of the view which it had taken earlier. The case therefore went back to the High Court, and a Division Bench of that Court has ultimately held that the writ petition is without merit, and has dismissed it. This is how the present appeal has arisen.

3. The three questions which are the subject-matter of present appeal have been stated by the High Court as follows:

1. Whether the respondent was no longer governed by the Punjab Civil Service Rules as his services had been borrowed by the Himachal Pradesh Administration and whether he ceased to be under the administrative control of the Punjab Government for that reason?

2. Whether it was permissible only for the Himachal Pradesh Administration to place the appellant under suspension and the Punjab Government had no such authority?

3. Whether the leave which had been granted to the appella