JUDGMENT

Yashoda Nandan, J. - The petitioner was employed as a class IV employee in the Narcotics Department and posted as a Sepoy in the Opium Factory Ghazipur. Some time in the year 1962, according to the petitioner, against his will and without his consent, his services were transferred and placed at the disposal of the Central Excise Department. After the transfer of his services to the Central Excise Department, he was ordered to join duties at Aliganj. It appears that the petitioner did not comply with the order and never 1980 Lab. I. C./51 IX joined his duties at Aliganj. He was, consequently, charge-sheeted and, after an inquiry, an order was passed by the Assistant Collector, Central Excise, Farrukhabad removing the petitioner from service.

Aggrieved by the order of his removal from service, he appealed to the President of India. By means of communication dated 2nd July 1970 from an Under Secretary to the Government of India in the Department of Revenue and Insurance, addressed to the Collector, Central Excise, Kanpur, of which a copy was endorsed to the petitioner, the Collector, Central Excise was informed that since the petitioners' lien in the Narcotics Department had not been terminated nor had he been permanently absorbed in the Central Excise Department, the Assistant Collector, Central Excise, Farrukhabad was not competent under R. 20 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 to remove him from service.

The communication mentioned above went on to state that the order passed by the Assistant Collector, Central Excise against the petitioner was illegal and void, and the President had, accordingly, set aside the same on technical grounds without going into the merits of the case. The letter of the Under Secretary informed the Collector, Central Excise that the case against the petitioner was being remitted for de novo proceedings in accordance with the prescribed procedure from the charge-sheet stage. It was emphasised that during the de novo proceedings, the provisions of rule 20 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules may be observed The letter went on to state that the period intervening the order of removal of the petitioner from service and the order passed by the appellate authority was to be adjusted as duty for the purposes of the petitioner's pay and allowance etc.

After the purport of the appellate order was communicated to the Collector, Central Excise and the petitioner, a fresh charge-sheet dated 10-9-1973 was served on the petitioner intimating to him that an inquiry was proposed to be held against him under R. 14 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965. Shortly, after the charge-sheet, was served on the petitioner, he presented this petition in this court on 24th May 1974. On the allegations set out above, the petitioner prays for a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding opposite party No. 1, the Superintendent of Central Excise, Kasganj, Etah not to proceed with the inquiry. There is a further prayer for a direction to the opposite parties to reinstate the petitioner in service.

2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has contended that in spite of the appellate order, by means of which the initial order of his removal from service was set aside, the instant proceedings are still being taken against him in disregard of R. HO (1) of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules. It was submitted that while the proviso to sub-rule (1) of R. 20 requires that if the transferee department commences disciplinary proceedings against an erring employee, the authority concerned shall forthwith inform the authority which lent the services of the Government servant about the commencement of such proceedings in the petitioner's case no such information has been conveyed to the Narcotics Department, which is the parent department of the petitioner and in which he still