K.A. Swami, C.J.
1. The writ appeal is preferred by the Vice-Chancellor of Anna University and also the Registrar of the same University against the order dated 3.12.1992 passed by the learned single Judge in W.M.P. No. 15377 of 1992 filed in W.P. No. 10668 of 1992. When the writ appeal came up for consideration, we considered it necessary to hear the writ petition itself, therefore W.P. No. 10668 of 1992 was directed to be posted along with the writ appeal. Accordingly, both the matters are posted before us and the same are heard together.
2. In the writ petition, the petitioner who is the respondent in the writ appeal, has sought for quashing the proceedings of the Vice-Chancellor of Anna University in Reference No. 14378/A3/92 dated 26.6.1992.
3. In the light of the contentions urged by both sides, the only point that arises for consideration is as to whether Anna University is competent to initiate and conduct disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner (D. Vasanthakumar).
4. Facts necessary for the purpose of deciding the point are not disputed and the same are as follows:
D. Vasanthakumar is an officer of the Electricity Board. He joined the service under the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board in the year 1972 as Assistant Engineer, and was promoted as Assistant Executive Engineer in the year 1984. On 29.5.1986, at the request of the University, his services were deputed to the University by the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board (which will hereinafter be referred to as the Board) initially for a period of 3 years as Assistant Executive Engineer, Anna University. Accordingly, he was relieved by the Board on 4.6.1986 and reported to duty in the University on 6.6.1986. His deputation came to be extended from time to time. It is not disputed before us by the petitioner that his deputation came to be extended upto 5.6.1993. Of course, the further extension of his deputation to the University is challenged by the petitioner on the ground that there could not have been any further extension of his deputation to the University and that too retrospectively. We will deal with this question at the relevant point of time. While the petitioner was on deputation in the University, according to the University, he committed misconduct, therefore, the University initiated a disciplinary proceeding and placed him under suspension on 2211.1991 and also framed charges on 26.6.1992. The charges are found at page 44 of the typed set of records filed by the writ petitioner. Five charges are framed against him, which are as follows:
26. Your action as stated above is very serious in nature. The following charges are therefore, framed against you:
1. that during the period 1989-91, you as Engineer in Audio Visual Research Centre, Anna University, have purchased various articles as mentioned in 28 invoices from M/s. K.M. Trading Company, 145, Govindappa Naicken Street, Madras-600001, as listed in Annexure I, on behalf of the Anna University, but, failed to bring those articles except an aluminium ladder worth Rs. 750 into the stock of the Audio Visual Research Centre and thereby committed misappropriation of the said articles worth Rs. 1,87,269.
2. That you have forged the invoices of M/s. K.M. Trading Company, Madras-600001 listed in Annexure II as if the articles mentioned therein were purchased from the said firm on behalf of the Anna University and used the said forged invoice vouchers for the purpose of preparing claim bills from the office of the Director, Audio Visual Research Centre of Curriculum Educational media and Development Centre in Anna University.
3. That you forged the signature of the Director, Curriculum Educational Media and Development Centre and caused presentation of the forged records to the University Office in order to get the claim bills passed and A/c. Payee cheques issued in the name of K.M. Trading Company, Madras-600001.
4. That by using the said forged records, you dishonestly caused the University Office to issue Account payee cheques for a total sum of Rs. 1,88,019 in the name of M/s. K.M. Trading Company, Madras-600001 in respect of the transaction which had not actually taken place between the University and the said firm and thereby cheated the University and
5. That by your aforesaid acts, you have caused financial loss to the Anna University, Madras to the extent of Rs. 1,87,269.
5. The contention of the petitioner is that as he belongs to the Board Service no disciplinary action can be taken against him by the University in the light of condition numbers 12 and 13 contained in the terms and conditions of the order of deputation dated 18.8.1986 produced at page 16 of the typed set of papers filed by the writ petitioner. Thus, the petitioner challenges the competency of the University to hold a disciplinary proceeding against him on the grounds that he has ceased to be on deputation after 5.6.1992 and that Regulation 10 of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board Employees' Discipline and Appeal Regulations (hereinafter referred to as D & A Regulations) cannot be invoked against him, that conditions 12 and 13 of the terms and conditions of the deputation order also do not permit it. In support of this contention, he has also placed reliance on the circular dated 28.11.1987 issued by the Chairman of the Board, produced at page 11 of the typed set of records (filed alongwith the writ petition).
6. On the contrary, it is the contention of the University that the deputation of the petitioner to the University has been extended even beyond 5.6.1992 and even to this day, he continues to be on deputation and has not ceased to be in foreign service, that in case an officer or an official is sent on deputation by the Board to foreign service, Regulation 10 of the D & A Regulations applies, as such it is permissible for the University to hold a disciplinary proceedings. Of course, in the event the University comes to the conclusion that the penalty of reduction in rank, dismissal, compulsory retirement or removal is to be imposed, then, the proceeding has to be referred to the Board, but, as far as the holding of disciplinary proceeding is concerned, it lies within the power of the University, having regard to the provisions contained in Regulation 10 of the D & A Regulations. Learned Counsel for the University has also placed reliance on Chapter III of Part II of the D & A Regulations relating to the mode of inquiry in the case of officials or officers of the Board sent on deputation.
7. We shall now first take up the first contention of the petitioner as to whether he can be held to have ceased to be on deputation after 5.6.1992. It is not disputed before us that after 5.6.1992, there is an order passed by the Board, continuing the deputation of the petitioner with the University. As per the order passed by the Board, the deputation period ends only on 5.6.1994. The last order extending the deputation has been passed on 5.o.l993. Even, according to the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, he continues to be on deputation. The writ petition was filed on 30th July, 1992. In paragraph No. 7 of the affidavit, the petitioner has stated thus:
I submit that I joined the Anna University as an Assistant Executive Engineer on 6.6.1986 and was serving as such till date. To my great surprise and shock, I received a communication from the Registrar, Anna University in order No. 27715/A3/91-1, dated 12.11.1991 placing me under suspension with immediate effect on the ground that an enquiry into grave charges was contemplated against me. Subsequently, after a lapse of nearly 8 months, I received a charge memo mentioning certain irregularities alleged to have been committed by me vide Anna University Vice Chancellor's Proceedings Ref. No. 14378/A3/92, dated 26.6.1992.
Thus, the fact remains that the deputation of the petitioner has been continued. It is also relevant to notice in this regard that the petitioner continues to be in foreign service, until he hands over the charge to the University and takes charge of his office in the Board. Regulation 78 of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board Service Regulations which deals with reversion from foreign service, states that,
An employee reverts from foreign service to Board's service on the date on which he takes charge of his post in the service of the Board, provided that if he takes leave on the conclusion of foreign service before rejoining his post, his reversion shall take effect from such date as the Board may decide.
Foreign Service has been defined in the very same service regulations as service in which an employee receives his sub-stantative or officiating pay with the sanction of the Board from any source other than the revenues of the Board. Admittedly, the petitioner received his salary from the University and that has been sanctioned by the Electricity Board, because the Board has spared his services for the University. Therefore, it is not possible to hold that the deputation of the petitioner has ceased after 5.6.1992.
8. In this regard, we may also refer to a decision in Hari Dutt v. Haryana State Agricultural Marketing Board : [1989]2SCR849 , as relied upon by learned Counsel for the University. In that case, the deputation of an officer was extended after the expiry of the deputation period. It was held that the effect of such order was to continue the officer on deputation from the period the deputation had expired. The relevant portion of the judgment is as follows:
The sole question before us is whether the Arbitrator Shri D.P. Gupta had jurisdiction to make the Award on 6th April, 1984 or had lost jurisdiction because of the order dated 4th April, 1984 reverting him to his parent department. The material before us shows that Shri D.P. Gupta was on deputation with the Marketing Board upto September 4,1984 and that he was prematurely required by the Chairman of the Marketing Board by order dated 4th April, 1984 to revert to his parent department. The State Government, however, ordered on 24th May, 1984 that Shri D.P. Gupta would continue on deputation with the Board and it is not disputed that Shri Gupta rejoined the Board. He did not in fact ever resume a post in his parent Department. The necessary consequence of the order of the State Government continuing him on deputation with the Marketing Board was to nullify the order dated 4th April, 1984 passed by the Chairman purporting to revert Shri Gupta to his parent Department. It appears from the record that Shri Gupta was paid his salary by the Marketing Board for the entire month of April, 1984 a circumstance which establishes that the Board itself considered him as continuing on deputation when he made the Award. That being so, he must be deemed to have enjoyed jurisdiction as Arbitrator on 6th April, 1984 when he made the Award. The deputation of Shri Gupta with the Marketing Board did never terminate.
That being so, it is not possible to accept the contention of the petitioner that there cannot be any continuation of the deputation with retrospective effect and as such, the petitioner has ceased to be on deputation from 5.6.1992. Once the deputation is continued, the consequence must follow and that consequence is that he should be deemed to be on deputation continuously.
9. The next question for consideration is as to whether it is permissible for the University to initiate disciplinary proceeding against the petitioner. Regulation 10 of the D & A Regulations provides thus:
10. Disciplinary action in respect of employees of State/Central Government or outside bodies:
(a) If any employee to be proceeded against is an employee of the State or Central Government or of any other outside body and is on deputation to the Board, no punishment shall be imposed on him without the concurrence of the authority who lent his services to the Board. If it is considered that the penalty of compulsory retirement, reduction in rank, removal or dismissal is to be imposed, the competent authority shall complete the enquiry and revert the employee concerned to the State or Central Government or other employer, as the case may be and also forward the records of enquiry for such action as is considered necessary.
(b) If a Board's employee is on foreign service, the foreign employer shall not impose any punishment on him without the concurrence of the Board. If any of the major punishments of reduction, compulsory retirement, removal or dismissal is to be imposed, the foreign employer shall conduct the necessary enquiry send the complete papers to the Board and also revert the employee concerned to the Board's service for such action as is considered necessary by the Board against him.
(c) In case an employee referred to in Clauses (a), (b) has to be suspended pending enquiry, the foreign employer shall place him under suspension but shall report forthwith to the lending authority the circumstances leading to the suspension.
For our purpose, Regulation 10(b) is relevant. According to it, if a Board's employee is on foreign service, the foreign employer shall be competent to hold the disciplinary proceeding, but, it is not competent to impose any punishment on him, without the concurrence of the Board. If any of the major punishments of reduction, compulsory retirement, removal or dismissal is to be imposed, the foreign employer shall conduct the necessary inquiry, send the complete papers to the Board and also revert the employee concerned to the Board's service for such action as is considered necessary by the Board against him. In this case, we are now at the stage of inquiry into the charges. The disciplinary proceedings have not been completed. It is only on the completion of the disciplinary proceedings, one would be able to find out as to whether the charges are true or not and are established and if established, what type of punishment has to be imposed. Therefore, the stage at which the disciplinary proceeding stands, it cannot now be said that the University is not competent to continue it. Condition numbers 12 and 13 of the order of deputation also do not help the petitioner. Those conditions are as follows:
12. Thiru G. Vasanlhakumar, Assistant Divisional Engineer (Elecl.) who is a member in Class II of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board Service will be deemed to be such member for the purpose of Tamil Nadu Electricity Board Discipline and Appeal Regulations notwithstanding that his services are placed at the disposal of the foreign employer.
13. If Thiru D. Vasanthakumar, Assistant Divisional Engineer (Elecl.) committed any act or omission which renders him liable to any penalty specified in Regulation 6 of the said Regulations, the authority who is competent to deal with his case with reference to Regulation 6(1) of the said Regulations shall be competent to institute disciplinary proceedings against him and to impose on him such penalty specified in the rules as he thinks fit and the foreign employer under whom the officer is serving at the time of institution of such proceedings shall be bound to render all reasonable facilities to the competent authorities instituting and conducting such proceedings.
The effect of condition numbers 12 and 13 is that the fact that an officer of the Board is sent on deputation to foreign service, does not result in his ceasing to be the member of Class II of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board Service. It would be open to the Board if it considers it necessary for any acts done by him before he is sent on deputation, to hold a disciplinary proceeding even though he is sent on deputation. Thus, condition numbers 12 and 13 which are to be read in the light of Regulation 10 of D and A, Regulations cannot be held to place the petitioner above Regulation 10, merely because he is sent on deputation.
10. We may also mention here that Chapter III, Part II of D & A Regulations is also relevant in this regard. Paragraph No. 8 of Chapter HI of Part II of D & A Regulations deals with Authorities competent to initiate disciplinary proceedings against employees of Board, whose services are placed at the disposal of State/Central Government or other bodies.
8. Authorities competent to initiate Disciplinary Proceedings against employees of Board whose services are placed at the disposal of State/Central Government or outside bodies:
(1) In the case of employees of the Board lent to other departments of the Government/Corporation or other Statutory Bodies, the disciplinary authority in respect of the post held by the officer for the time being may impose any of the prescribed penalties except those of compulsory retirement, removal or dismissal from service, but before imposing any such penalty, such authority should consult the lending authority in the matter and the opinion of the latter should ordinarily prevail. In cases which call for the punishment of compulsory retirement, removal or dismissal, the borrowing authority should complete the enquiry and forward the records, together with its findings to the lending authority which should pass such orders on it as it may think fit.
(2) The terms governing the deputation of Board employee on foreign service to Public Corporations, Companies, Organisations and local authorities should contain the following provision for taking disciplinary action against them for past acts of omission and commission while they were in Board service: Thiru...who is a member of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board Service will be deemed to be such member for the purpose of Tamil Nadu Electricity Board Employees' Discipline and Appeal Regulations Standing Orders notwithstanding that his services are placed at the disposal of the...foreign employer to be specified. If Thiru.... has committed any act or omission which renders him liable to any penalty, the authority who is competent to deal with his case with reference to Discipline and Appeal Regulations/Standing Orders shall be competent to institute disciplinary proceedings against him and to impose on him such penalty specified in the rule as it thinks fit and the foreign employer whom the employee is serving at the time of institution of such proceedings shall be bound to render all reasonable facilities to the competent authorities instituting and conducting such proceedings.
Failure to include the above term in the order of the deputation on foreign service will result in avoidable complications in dealing with cases of foreign service.
It is in the light of these provisions, conditions 12 and 13 are incorporated in the order of deputation, which, as already pointed out, do not place the petitioner above Regulation 10 of D & A Regulations, rather make sure that even on deputation also, the deputed officer will not escape the disciplinary proceedings in respect of the misconduct committed by him before he is sent on deputation and it would be open to the Electricity Board to hold a disciplinary inquiry inspite of the fact that he is on deputation.
11. For the reasons stated above, we are of the view that the point raised for determination will have to be answered in the affirmative. Accordingly, it is answered in the affirmative. Accordingly, we hold that as the deputation of the petitioner continues till 5.6.1994. The University is competent to initiate and continue and complete the disciplinary proceedings as initiated by the University, as per D & A Regulations and as indicated in this order.
12. For the reasons stated above, the writ petition is dismissed. Consequently, the writ appeal becomes infructuous, because the interim order comes to an end. Hence, the writ appeal is disposed of as having become infructuous. However, there will be no order as to costs.