1. Since both the writ petitions involve common question of law and fact, they are being disposed of by this common order.

2. The petitioner served the State of Madhya Pradesh and ultimately, in accordance with the provision contained in Section 68 (2) of the Madhya Pradesh Reorganisation Act, 2000 (for short, 'the Act of 2000'), he was allocated to the State of Chhattisgarh by order dated 24-10-2002 and with effect from 16-9-2002 his services were finally allocated to the State of Chhattisgarh and he was relieved on 31-10-2002 as such, he joined in the State of Chhattisgarh and is continuing. Meanwhile, on 5-6-2006, the State of Madhya Pradesh through the Chief Engineer, Vainganga Basin, Water Resources Department, Seoni, taken a decision to hold departmental enquiry against the petitioner and issued charge-sheet to him which has been challenged by the petitioner in W.P.No.4653/2006.

Thereafter, during the pendency of the writ petition, enquiry officer and presenting officer were appointed by order dated 7-11-2007 against which W.P.(S) No.555/2008 was filed by the petitioner questioning that once he has been allocated to the State of Chhattisgarh, the State of Madhya Pradesh has no jurisdiction and authority to initiate departmental enquiry and as such, the enquiry so initiated is without jurisdiction and without authority of law.

3. Mr. V.G. Tamaskar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, would submit that the impugned orders passed in both the writ petitions are without jurisdiction and without authority of law.

4. Mr. Rajeev Shrivastava, learned counsel appearing for the State of Madhya Pradesh, would support the impugned orders.

5. Mr. Ashish Surana, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the State of Chhattisgarh, would submit the impugned orders have not been passed by the State of Chhattisgarh and no order initiating departmental enquiry against the petitioner has been passed by the State of Chhattisgarh.

6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered their rival submissions made herein-above and also went through the record with utmost circumspection.

7. In order to decide the dispute between the parties, it would be appropriate to notice the definition of existing State of Madhya Pradesh and Successor State as defined in the M.P. Reorganisation Act, 2000.

Section 2(e) :- “existing State of Madhya Pradesh” means the State of Madhya Pradesh as existing immediately before the appointed day.

Section 2(j) :- “Successor State” in relation to the existing State of Madhya Pradesh means the State of Madhya Pradesh or Chhattisgarh.

8. Thus, with effect from 01.11.2000 both State of Madhya Pradesh and State of Chhattisgarh are Successor States.

9. It would also be appropriate to consider Sections 68 and 69 of the Act of 2000 which read as under:-

“68. Provisions relating to services in Madhya Pradesh and Chhattisgarh.-(1) Every person who immediately before the appointed day is serving in connection with the affairs of the existing State of Madhya Pradesh shall, on and from that day provisionally continue to serve in connection with the affairs of the State of Madhya Pradesh unless he is required, by general or special order of the Central Government to serve provisionally in connection with the affairs of the State of Chhattisgarh :

Provided that no direction shall be issued under this section after the expiry of a period of one year from the appointed day.

(2) As soon as may be after the appointed day, the Central Government shall, by general or special order, determine the successor State of which every person referred to in sub-section (1) shall be finally allotted for service and the date with effect from which such allotment shall take effect or be deemed to have taken effect.

(3) Every person who is finally allotted under the provisions of sub-section (2) to a successor State shall, if he is not already serving therein be made available for serving in the successor State from such date as may be agreed upon b