Menon, J.-- 1. This appeal has been filed by the appellant under section 2(1) of the Madhya Pradesh Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyayapeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005 calling in question tenability of an order dated 4.12.2008 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court dismissing the writ petition filed challenging an order of punishment Annexure P-6 dated 28.8.2000, imposing a penalty of down grading in pay for a period of four years.

2. Facts in nut-shell goes to show that the appellant B. L. Satyarthi was working as a Range Officer in the Forest Department. At the relevant time when the cause of action for initiating the present proceedings commenced, he was a Forest Ranger working in the Forest Department, a Class 2 Gazetted post in terms of the Rules framed under Article 309 of the Constitution by the State of Madhya Pradesh.

3. The Madhya Pradesh Rajya Van Vikas Nigam is an independent autonomous Corporation. In the year 1988 appellant was sent on deputation to the Madhya Pradesh Rajya Van Vikas Nigam and while so working in the said Nigam on deputation, a notice for proposing recovery against him was issued by the Nigam (Corporation) on 12.8.1989 and it seems that certain recoveries were also ordered thereafter. Be it as it may be, the appellant continued on deputation in the Corporation upto 6.11.1989 when he was repatriated back to the parent department namely the Forest Department and he joined the parent department immediately after 6.11.1989.

4. While so working in the parent department a charge-sheet dated 8.5.1990 was served on him on 16.5.90 with regard to certain acts of commission and ommission conducted by him while working in the Corporation as a Ranger. This charge-sheet was issued by the Managing Director of the Corporation. Appellant denied the charges levelled, therefore, a departmental enquiry was ordered and finally after conducting an enquiry in accordance to the requirement of Madhya Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966 on 28.8.2000 vide Annexure P-6 punishment of down grading him in pay for a period of four years was passed by the State Government. Challenging the same the writ petition was filed and the writ petition having been dismissed, this appeal under section 2(1) of the Madhya Pradesh Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyayapeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005.

5. Shri D. K. Dixit, learned counsel for the appellant employee invited our attention to the requirement of rule 20 of the Madhya Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966 and argued that the provisions of rule 20 only mandates taking of disciplinary action against an employee who is on deputation to a Foreign Department during the period of deputation. It is argued by him that if the employee is repatriated back to the parent department after conclusion of the period of deputation then the right to take and initiate departmental enquiry or action is not available to the Foreign Department. It is only available to the parent department and as in this case the entire action for initiating the departmental enquiry by issuing the charge-sheet on 8.5.1990, considering the reply to the charge-sheet and appointing a Enquiry Officer on 22.8.1980, receiving the enquiry report and then recommending a punishment is undertaken by the Managing Director of the Madhya Pradesh Rajya Van Vikas Nigam, after repatriation the entire action stands vitiated as the Foreign department had no authority to initiate the departmental enquiry and conduct the disciplinary enquiry once the appellant was repatriated back to the parent department. Inviting our attention to a judgment of Supreme Court in the case of Shivprasad Pandey v. Central Bureau of Investigation, New Delhi [AIR 2003 SC 1974], Shri Dixit argued that if the provisions of rule 20 of the Discipline and Appeal Rules are perused and if the principles of law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Shiv Prasad Pandey (supra) is applied, then on rep