( 1 ) THE petitioner is an allottee from the erstwhile State of Hyderabad, who was holding the post of a Peshkar in the Revenue Department on 1-11-1956. After the petitioner was allotted to the new State of Mysore under the provisions of the States Reorganisation Act, 1956, the Board of revenue, Civil Supplies (Accounts) Department of Anhdra Pradesh government investigated into certain irregularities alleged to have been committed by the petitioner when he was serving as a Store-keeper at tandur in Hyderabad State between 16-11-1952 and 13-1-1956. As a result of the said investigation, the Director of Civil Supplies came to the tentative conclusion that the petitioner has caused loss when he was functioning as a Store-keeper to the extent of Rs. 5,560-65 and that the same should be got reimbursed from him. A show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner by the Board of Revenue, Civil Supplies Department of andhra Pradesh Government, to which the petitioner sent his reply. ( 2 ) THEREAFTER, the petitioner was served with a notice by the Divisional commissioner of Gulbarga dt. 7/16th May, 1969, requiring him to show cause as to why, in exercise of the powers conferred by Rule 9 (c) of the Mysore State Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) rules, 1957, disciplinary proceedings should not be taken to recover a sum of Rs. 5,560-65 towards the value of shortages in foodgrains and gunnies of godown at Tandur, which occurred during the period the petitioner stayed at that place from 1952 to 1956. The petitioner sent a reply to the said show-cause notice. After receiving the said reply from the petitioner, the divisional Commissioner made the impugned order on 17th January 1970, produced in the case as Ext. A, the operative portion of which reads as follows :"now therefore, in exercise of the powers vested in me under rule 12 read with Rule 8 (iv) of the MCS (CC and A) Rules 1957 it is hereby ordered that a sum of Rs. 5,560-65 be recovered from Shri inyat Khan Sheristedar Deputy Commissioner's Office, Bidar. This amount may be recovered by the Deputy Commissioner, Bidar in monthly instalments from the pay of the official. " ( 3 ) THE petitioner has, in this writ petition, challenged the aforesaid order issued by the Divisional Commissioner of Gulbarga. 5,560-65 be recovered from Shri inyat Khan Sheristedar Deputy Commissioner's Office, Bidar. This amount may be recovered by the Deputy Commissioner, Bidar in monthly instalments from the pay of the official. " ( 3 ) THE petitioner has, in this writ petition, challenged the aforesaid order issued by the Divisional Commissioner of Gulbarga. The contantion of Shri Santhosh Hegde, learned Counsel for the petitioner, is that the Divisional Commissioner had no jurisdiction to make any order regarding recovery of a sum of Rs. 5,560-65 the alleged loss caused by him when he was serving in Tandur in Hyderabad State. As the impugned order itself indicates the Divisional Commissioner passed the order invoking Rule 8 (iv) of the CCA. Rule. Rule 8 of the Rules sets out the penalties that may be imposed on Government servants. Clause (iv) of rule 8, with which we are concerned, reads as follows :"8 (iv)Recovery from pay of the whole or part of any pecuniary loss caused by negligence or breach of orders to the State Government or to the Central Government, any other State Government, any person, body or authority, to whom the service of the Officer had been lent ;"clause (iv) of Rule 8 empowers the disciplinary authority to take action to recover from pay the whole or any part of the pecuniary loss caused by negligence or breach of orders to the State Government or Central Government, or any other State Government, person, body or authority to whom the service of the officer had been lent. It is not the case of the respondents that any pecuniary loss was caused to the State Government of Mysore. As already mentioned, the alleged loss was caused in the erstwhile State of Hyderabad, when tne petitioner was serving at Tandur. The services of the petitioner were not lent to the Government of Andhra Pradesh by the State of Mysore. The alleged loss was caused when the petitioner was serving before the new State of Mysore came into existence. Rule 8 (iv) could have been invoked if the petitioner's services had been lent to andhra Pradesh Government and the petitioner had caused less by his negligence or breach of orders to the Government cf Andhra Pradesh. The alleged loss was caused when the petitioner was serving before the new State of Mysore came into existence. Rule 8 (iv) could have been invoked if the petitioner's services had been lent to andhra Pradesh Government and the petitioner had caused less by his negligence or breach of orders to the Government cf Andhra Pradesh. As the petitioner who is the servant of the new State of Mysore was not lent to serve under the Andhra Pradesh Government, Rule 8 (iv) cannot at all be invoked. Rule 8 (iv) does not contemplate a situation arising in the context of re-organisation of States. If any disciplinary proceedings were pending on the date of re-organisation of States, the same could have been continued by the new State of Mysore under the provisions of S. 125 of the States Reorganisation Act. It is not the case of the respondents that any disciplinary proceedings in this case were pending against the petitioner on 1-11-1956. ( 4 ) AS the conditions specified in Rule 8 (iv) are not fulfilled, we hold that the Divisional Commissioner had no jurisdiction to pass the impugned order. ( 5 ) FOR the reasons stated above, we allow this writ petition and quash the order of the Divisional Commissioner dt-17-1-1970. No costs. --- *** --- .