JUDGMENT

K.N. Seth, J. - The appellants challenged the order of suspension passed against them through two separate petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India giving rise to the above noted appeals. The question involved in both the appeals is substantially the same, they may conveniently be disposed of by a common judgment.

2. The Food Corporation of India (hereinafter called the Corporation) was constituted by an Act of Parliament (Act No. XXXVII of 1964) as a body corporate and its management was vested in the Board of Directors. S. V. Badlani was appointed Assistant Director of Food in the Department of Food in the Ministry of Food and Agriculture by the President of India. R. B. Verma was a clerk in the Ministry of Food and Agriculture. Their services were placed at the disposal of the Corporation. By an order dated 11th August, 1971, S. V. Badlani was placed under suspension by the Managing Director of the Corporation. R. B. Verma was placed under suspension by an order of the Senior Regional Manager dated 1st February, 1971. They challenged the orders of suspension through petitions under Art. 226 of the Constitution which were dismissed by a learned single judge of this Court.

3. It is not disputed that the appellants are governed by the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as Rules). Under sub-rule (1) of Rule 10 the appointing authority or any authority to which it is subordinate or the disciplinary authority or any other authority empowered in that behalf by the President, by general or special order may place a Government servant under suspension where a disciplinary proceeding against him is contemplated or is pending. The question for consideration is whether the order of suspension could be validly passed by the authorities concerned. It was contended that the services of the appellants were lent to the Corporation and as they continued to be in the service of the Government of India (Food Department) they could not be placed under suspension by the authorities of the Corporation.

4. Sub-rule (1) of Rule 20 provides :

"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 power 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 :

Provided that the borrowing authority shall forthwith inform the authority which lent 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 of the commencement of the disciplinary proceeding, as the case may be." The Corporation purported to act under Rules 10 and 20 in placing the appellants under suspension. The borrowing authority must be either a department of the Central Govt. or a State Govt. or an authority subordinate to it or a local authority or some other authority. The Corporation can take recourse to Rule 20 if it can be held to be "other authority" within the meaning of this Rule. In that case it would have all powers of the appointing authority for the purposes of placing the appellants, whose services have been lent to it, under suspension.

5. The words "other authority" have not been defined in the Rules and in order to determine whether an authority like the Corporation was within the contemplation of Rule 20 some assistance is available from the interpretation put on the words "other authorities" occurring in Article 12 of the Constitution of India. In Rajasthan State Electricity Board v. Mohan Lal, (AIR 1967 SC 1857) one of the principal questions raised was whether the Rajasthan State