Order.-The petitioner was a Constable in the Madras City Police and he was promoted as a Sub-Inspector later. In May, 1975, the petitioner’s services were lent by way of deputation by the Commissioner of Police to the Secretariat to work as a Roving Inspector in Fort St. George. On 6th May, 1975 he was served with a memo stating that an enquiry into certain charges of high-handedness had been contemplated against him, and, therefore, he was placed under suspension under rule 17 (e) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules pending enquiry. He was later served with a memo dated 20th May, 1975 by the Deputy Secretary to Government, Public (Establishment) Department setting out a charge of highhandedness towards a member of the Secretariat staff and calling upon him to show cause why disciplinary action should not be taken against him. The petitioner submitted his explanation on 6th June, 1975, wherein he denied the charges and contended that the Deputy Secretary to Government, who had framed the charges and issued the show-cause notice, is not the appropriate authority competent to initiate disciplinary proceedings against him and that, if he had committed any offence, it is for the Head of bis parent department to initiate disciplinary proceedings. Subsequently, on 28th November, 1975 the petitioner was informed that he is given a last chance to appear and to participate in the enquiry and that if he fails to appear on the date of the enquiry on 5th December, 1975 the enquiry will be proceeded with in his absence and decided on merits. Thereafter, the petitioner has moved this Court for the issue of a writ of prohibition prohibiting the first respondent from proceeding with the conduct of the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner. 2. The only ground that has been urged in this writ petition is that the petitioner, being the member of the Police Force, is governed only by the Madras Police Subordinate Services Disciplinary and Appeal Rules, 1955 and that, therefore, the proper authority to enquire into the alleged misconduct is only the disciplinary authority constituted under these Rules and that he is not governed by the Madras Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules which the first respondent has invoked for the purpose of taking disciplinary proceedings against him. According to the learned Counsel for the petitioner, even after the petitioner’s deputation from his parent department (police) to the Secretariat he is governed only by the Madras Police Subordinate Service Discipline and Appeal Rules, 1955 and, therefore, the disciplinary authority constituted under the Madras Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules cannot have any jurisdiction to either conduct an enquiry in respect of the charges framed against him or to impose an order of punishment. 3. I am not inclined to agree with the learned Counsel for the petitioner that not with standing his deputation to the Secretariat he is not under the disciplinary jurisdiction of the borrowing authority (Secretariat) and that he will continue to be governed by the Madras Police Subordinate Services Discipline and Appeal Rules, 1955, for all purposes. Rule 16 of the Madras Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules specifically provides for the situation as the one on hand. Rule 16 is as follows: "16. Where a petitioner to be punished has been lent to the punishing authority- (i) the power to impose the penalty of compulsory retirement or removal or dismissal, shall not lie with any authority other than the lending authority; the borrowing authority, shall in a case where it considers that the punishment of compulsory retirement, removal or dismissal should be imposed, complete the enquiry and revert the person concerned to the lending authority for such action as that authority may consider necessary: Provided that the provision in this clause requiring the reversion of the person concerned to the lending authority shall not apply where the person has been lent by one department to another and both the departments are under the same administrative authority: and (ii) unless in any case it be otherwise provided by specific orders by the Governor of Madras, the punishing authority shall consult the lending authority before imposing any lesser penalty and in the case of suspension shall report forthwith to the lending authority the circumstances leading to the imposition of that penalty." The above rule deals how the disciplinary action should be taken against a person who has been lent from one department to another. In this case, the petitioner is a person who has been lent on deputation from the police department to the Secretariat. In this case, the petitioner is a person who has been lent on deputation from the police department to the Secretariat. So long as he serves in the Secretariat as a person lent to that department, he cannot say that the said rule 16 of the Madras Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, will not apply. Even assuming, as is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, that the Madras Police Subordinate Services Discipline and Appeals Rules, 1955, does not make any such provision, the petitioner as a person deputed to the Secretariat is governed at least by rule 16 of the Madras Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules. In this case, rule 16 provides that in the case of three major penalties such as compulsory retirement, removal or dismissal, the lending authority can alone punish the person concerned and wherever the borrowing authority considers that the three major punishments are to be imposed, he has to complete the enquiry and revert the person concerned to the lending authority for taking such action as that authority considers necessary. But, in cases of minor punishments other than the said three major punishments the lending authority can conduct the enquiry. But the ultimate order imposing penalty can only be made by the borrowing authority after consultation with the lending authority. In this case, the first respondent has merely issued a show cause notice and has proposed to conduct the enquiry. That the first respondent is entitled to conduct the enquiry under rule 16 of the Madras Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, cannot, therefore, be in dispute. But, whether he can straightaway impose the order of punishment of penalty after consultation with the lending authority or whether he has to revert the petitioner to the parent department for taking such action against him as he considers necessary, will depend upon the materials gathered at the enquiry and the findings to be given by the first respondent. So long as the first respondent has got power to conduct an enquiry, a writ of prohibition sought for by the petitioner cannot be issued at this stage. Whether the first respondent has exceeded his jurisdiction or not will have to be seen only when the first respondent proposes to impose the penalty after the completion of the enquiry. So long as the first respondent has got power to conduct an enquiry, a writ of prohibition sought for by the petitioner cannot be issued at this stage. Whether the first respondent has exceeded his jurisdiction or not will have to be seen only when the first respondent proposes to impose the penalty after the completion of the enquiry. Therefore, the writ petition is premature and the petitioner cannot have a writ of prohibition at this stage. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed.