JUDGMENT
Brijesh Kumar, A.C.J. and Jagdish Bhalla, J.
1. By means of this writ petition, a prayer has been made for quashing of the notice dated 29.6.1995, contained In Annexure-12 to the writ petition and the order through which the same has been served by the Jal Nigam upon the petitioner on June 30, 1995.
2. So far the prayer for quashing of Annexure-6 dated 28.11.1989 is concerned, namely, the order of punishment inflicted by the U. P. Jal Nigam, learned counsel for the petitioner has fairly conceded that since the appeal against the said order of punishment is already pending, second prayer is not pressed. Once a matter is receiving attention of the appellate authority, it is only appropriate that the petitioner must wait for the decision of the said authority.
3. So far the show cause notice dated 29.6.1995 is concerned, it has been issued by the State Government under Rule 69 of U. P. Civil Services (Classification Control and Appeal) Rules. According to the said notice, the State Government has taken a decision to take action according to the above said Rule 69. A show cause notice has thus been served upon the petitioner.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned State counsel and the counsel for the Jal Nigam.
5. The ground of attack while impugning the show cause notice dated June 29, 1995 is that it is without jurisdiction since the State Government has no power to issue any notice under Rule 69 of the Rules for enhancement of punishment to an employee of the Jal Nigam. It is further submitted that the Jal Nigam has framed its own Service Regulations. The said Regulation is known as U. P. Jal Nigam (Employees Conditions of Service) Regulations, 1975 and it is provided that all matters relating to conduct and discipline shall be regulated, mutatis mutandis and subject to any other regulations for the time being in force
by rules and orders to the corresponding categories of Government Servants, under the rule-making control of the Governor of the Uttar Pradesh, with the substitution of references In such rules, to the Governor or State Government by references to the ‘Nigam’. It is thus submitted that under the C.C.A. Rules in Rule 69, the word ‘the Nigam’ will have to be read in place of the State Government. We find that the Nigam has framed the Service Regulations under Section 97 (2) (c) of the U. P. Water Supply and Sewerage Act. Section 97 reads as under :
“97. (2) In particular, and without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing power, such regulations may provide for all or any of the following matters, namely :
(a) the summoning and holding of meetings of the Nigam or a Jal Sansthan, the time and place where such meeting are to be held, the conduct of business at such meetings and the number of persons necessary to form a quorum thereat ;
(b) the powers and duties of the employees of the Nigam or a Jal Sansthan ;
(c) the salaries and allowances and other conditions of service of employees of the Nigam or a Jal Sansthan other than employees employed on contract basis ;
(d) …..
(e) …..
(f) ……
(g) ……
(h) ……
(i) ……
The position thus would be clear that the service conditions of the employees of the Nigam will be governed by the Service Regulations framed by the Nigam in exercise of its powers vested under Section 97 (2) (c) of the U. P. Water Supply and
Sewerage Act. There is no dispute about these Regulations. That being the position, the C.C.A. Rules as may be applicable to the employees of the Nigam would be read modified to the extent that Instead of State Government, it will be read ‘the Nigam’ as a result of which, the decision to enhance the punishment can only be taken by the Nigam and not by the State Government. Therefore, there seems to be substance in the submission made that the show cause notice is without jurisdiction.
6. Learned State counsel has tried to justify the notice taking aid of Section 89 of the U. P. Water Supply and Sewerage Act. Section 89 reads as under:
“89. (1) In the discharge of its functions, the Nigam shall be guided by such directions on questions of policy as may be given to it by the State Government.
(2) If any question arises whether any matter is or is not a matter as respects which the State Government may issue a direction under sub-section (1), the decision of the State Government shall be final.”
7. It is provided by the above said provision that the State Government would be entitled to give directions to the Nigam on the questions of policy. It is difficult to accept that issuing notice to an individual employee of the Jal Sansthan for the purposes of enhancement of his punishment would amount to direction of the State Government on a question of policy. The notice is directed only to a particular employee who has already been given punishment by the Nigam. The question as to whether the punishment deserves to be enhanced would not be, as observed earlier, a matter of direction on a question of policy. The impugned Annexure-12 dated 29.6.1995 only deals with an Individual case. We, therefore, repel this contention raised on behalf of the State.
8. Next, the reliance has been placed on Section 8 of the U. P. Water
Supply and Sewerage Act. 1975. Section 8 reads as under :
“8. (1) Subject to the provision of sub-section (2), the Nigam may appoint such employees as It considers necessary on such terms and conditions as it thinks fit for the efficient performance of its functions :
Provided that the appointment of such employees as the State Government may by general or special order, specify shall be made and their terms and conditions shall be determined with the approval of the State Government.
(2) The Nigam may, with the previous approval of the State Government, appoint a servant of the Central Government or the State Government as an employee of the Nigam on such terms and conditions as it thinks fit.”
The above provision only enables the Nigam to appoint such employees as it is thought necessary and on such terms and conditions as may be thought fit for efficient performance of the functions of the Nigam. So far proviso is concerned. It is provided that the Nigam may appoint employees as the State Government may by general or special order, specify and their terms and conditions of service shall be determined with the approval of the State Government. It is not the case of the opposite parties that the petitioner was appointed by the Nigam in pursuance of any general or special order of the State Government. Sub-section (2) of Section 8 is not relevant for the purpose of this case. The petitioner is an appointee of prior to 1975. He was appointed in the L.S. G.E.D. Department of the Government and was working there and by virtue of Section 37 of the U. P. Water Supply and Sewerage Act, their services, by operation of law, stood transferred to Nigam and accordingly became employee of the Nigam on the same terms and conditions and continue to be on same terms until terminated or until his remuneration or other terms and conditions of service are revised
or altered by the Nigam under or in pursuance of any law or in accordance with any provision which for the time being governs his service. As observed earlier, the Nigam has framed its own Service Regulations under the provisions as contained under Section 97 (2) (c) of the Act, according to which the C.C.A. Rules will be applicable with limited modification that Instead of the word ‘State’ it would be read as ‘Nigam’. That being the position, in our view, the notice under Rule 69 could only be issued by the Nigam under the Service Regulations of the Nigam and not by the State Government.
9. In view of the discussions held above, the writ petition is allowed and the show cause notice dated 29.6.1995, contained in Annexure-12 to the writ petition, is quashed. There would, however, be no order as to costs. The amount of Rs. 50,000 (Rupees fifty thousand only) which was ordered to be retained by the opposite parties, that order no more survives and the amount payable to the petitioner on account of post reliral benefits, they shall be cleared by the opposite parties.