ORDER: The petitioner in this Rule has impeached proceeding no. 5 of 1974, as initiated against him and so also the second show cause notice as issued. 2. The Rule was obtained on 16th January 1976 with some interim order to the extent that the departmental proceeding will continue, but the respondents shall nut pass any final order until further orders of this Court. It is the case of the petitioner that he was appointed as a constable in the Bankura District Police in or about May 1948. As such, he has stated that his terms of service and conditions of employment are governed by Police Regulations, Bengal, 1943 (hereinafter referred to as the P.R.B) and not by the West Bengal Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as the said Rules). It is his case that he is a class IV employee and his appointing authority was the Superintendent of Police, Bankura. 3. The petitioner has stated that he, in the name of his wife purchased, out of his wife's money, in the year 1966, two plots in mouza Rampur, Bankura, one at a price of Rs. 999/- and another, at a price of Rs. 900/-. The total price of the lands as aforesaid was thus Rs. 1,899/-. The petitioner has stated that a sum of Rs. 500/- for the first transaction and Rs. 300/- for the second transaction was outstanding and not paid at the relevant time. It is his case that since the lands were purchased in the name of his wife, the petitioner submitted a declaration or statement of his assets to hi, appointing authority, viz, Superintendent of Police, Bankura, respondent No. I. It is the further case of the petitioner that after such purchase he constructed a two-roomed pucca house over the lands within a span of four or five years and the constructional expenses were met by him after taking loans from his Provident Fund and also taking loans from the Bankura Town Co-operative Bank. He has further stated that apart from the loans as aforesaid, the balance of the money, for such construction, was supplied to him by his wife by selling her gold ornaments and paternal properties in Khulna district, now in Bangladesh. It appears that after the' filing of the declaration as mentioned above, the concerned proceeding being proceeding no. He has further stated that apart from the loans as aforesaid, the balance of the money, for such construction, was supplied to him by his wife by selling her gold ornaments and paternal properties in Khulna district, now in Bangladesh. It appears that after the' filing of the declaration as mentioned above, the concerned proceeding being proceeding no. 5 of 1974, was initiated against the petitioner by his appointing authority, viz., the Superintendent of Police, Bankura. Upon such, initiation, an enquiry was also held and thereafter, charges as mentioned in Annexure D to the petition, were framed against the petitioner and those charges were to the following effect (1) that during the year s. 1966 and 1967 the petitioner had acquired landed properties worth approximately Rs. 10,000/-, of which an amount of Rs. 7,000/- was disproportionate to his known sources of income. This was unbecoming of a Government servant and (2) the petitioner purchased two plots of land in 1966 in the name of his wife, without obtaining prior permission from his appointing authority, in violation of Rule 15(2) of the Government Servant's Conduct Rules. In answer to the charges, the petitioner duly filed his written statement, wherein he denied categorically the basis of the allegations and wanted to establish that the lands which were purchased and the construction which was made, were done out of his own money or with such money, which could not be said to be disproportionate to his known source of income. In any event, he contended that since prior permission of the authority for acquiring such properties under the said P.R.B. was not required to be taken by him, so the action as proposed or as taken, was improper and not maintainable in law. After this, admittedly a personal hearing was given to the petitioner on 22nd December 1974 by the Superintendent of Police, Bankura and in the said hearing also the petitioner pleaded that the allegations as sought to be levelled against him were without any basis, apart from the fact that they were without jurisdiction. However, after hearing him, a provisional order dated 31st December 1975, was passed, directing the petitioner to show cause why he should not be dismissed from the Police Force. This order is in Annexure-E to the petition. However, after hearing him, a provisional order dated 31st December 1975, was passed, directing the petitioner to show cause why he should not be dismissed from the Police Force. This order is in Annexure-E to the petition. The petitioner, without showing cause against the second show cause notice, has come up to this Court and obtained the present Rule. 4. The respondents in their affidavit-in-opposition dated 14th February 1980, filed through Shri Kanwaljit Singh, respondent no. 1, has stated that the petitioner was appointed as a constable of West Bengal Police in 1984 and his service is thus guided by the West Bengal Service Rules and the West Bengal Government Servants' Conduct Rules, 1959. It has been stated in the said affidavit that the Rules and other instructions commencing from Rule 105 in Chapter-IV of P.K.B., Volume-I, 1943, has since been repealed, by Rule 35 of the Government Servants' Conduct Rule, 1959. The said Rule 35 lays down that any Rule corresponding to this Rule in force immediately before the commencement of this Rule and applicable to the Government Servant to whom this Rule applies are hereby repealed and under the proviso to the said Rule 35 it is provided that in respect of anything done or any act committed or any omission made by any Government Servant before the commencement of this Rule, regulating the conduct of the Government servant, which was in force, for the things so done or acts so committed or omission so made, shall be deemed to continue to apply. 5. It is the case, of the answering respondents further that the petitioner, having admitted the purchase of the lands in the name of his wife and such fact also having been proved (bring the enquiry in the concerned proceeding no. 5 of 1974, Rule 15(2)(a) of the West Bengal Government Servants Conduct Rules, 1959 had application and more particularly when the said Rule lays down that no Government servant shall purchase any immoveable properties except with the previous knowledge of the appointing authority that is the Superintendent pf Police. Bankura in the instant case. It has also be n stated that the Superintendent of Police concerned had no knowledge or any information about the purchase as made by the petitioner. Bankura in the instant case. It has also be n stated that the Superintendent of Police concerned had no knowledge or any information about the purchase as made by the petitioner. It is the case of the respondents further that on the results of the enquiry, which was arrived at after following duly the principles of natural justice and with opportunities to the petitioner, the allegations as leveled against him, were found to be proved and the enquiry was initiated on the basis of the allegations made against the petitioner by the Inspector of Vigilance, Anti Corruption Unit, Bankura and after going through the concerned report, the respondent Superintendent of Police, Bankuria, was prima facie satisfied that there were materials to substantiate the charges and thus the charges were drawn up. The respondents have categorically denied any violation of the principles of natural justice or any arbitrariness in the instant case and they have stated that because of the action as taken by the petitioner, namely by filing the statement, the respondents got the clue for initiating the proceedings and holding of enquiry and as a result of such enquiry, it was found that the petitioner was guilty of the charges as levelled. The material allegations have, of course, been denied by the petitioner in the reply dated 8th March 1980. 6. Admittedly, the petitioner has come up against the second show cause and ordinarily this Court would not be justit1ed to interfere at such second second show cause stage in this jurisdiction. But there are exceptional circumstances, where such interference is possible and permissible, Mr. Maity, appearing in support of the Rule, contended that since the terms of service and conditions of employment of the petitioner were governed by the said P.R.B. and not the said Rules or the West Bengal Service Conduct Rule and the West Bengal Services Rules, Part-1, so the initiation as made should be held to be not maintainable. This proceedings at the second show cause state, would be maintainable, because by initiating it, the authorities concerned acted without jurisdiction. This proceedings at the second show cause state, would be maintainable, because by initiating it, the authorities concerned acted without jurisdiction. So, the whole point in the instant case or the preliminary fact which has got to be found out is as to whether the terms of service or the conditions of employment of petitioner in the facts of this case were governed by the said P.R.B. or they were governed by the said Rules or the other Service Rules as mentioned. In support of his submissions that only the said P.R.B. is applicable in the instant case, and the petitioner, because of his character of service, was not required to file a declaration, Mr. Maiti referred to Rule 112(b) of the said P.R.B. which is to the following effect: "(b) No declaration or stetment is required (I) from any launch rating or (2) from a hpad constable or constable but any officer promoted to the rank of Assisiant Sub-Inspector or Sub-Inspector shall submit the declaration prescribed above and continue, thereafter, to submit annual statements.' If the said Rules of the Government Servants' Conduct Rules as mentioned and the said Rules are not applicable, then of course, Mr. Maiti would be justified in his contentions that the petitioner was not required to file a declaration or statement and as such the initiation would perhaps be void also without jurisdiction. 7. Mr. Chatterjee, who appeared for the respondents, contended otherwise and be, on a reference to Rule 106 of the said P.R.B., which is to the following effect:- "106. The Government Servants' conduct Rules to the services recruited by the Secretary of State shall be binding on all officers of the Indian Police, and those applicable to services under the control of the Provincial Government are binding on all other servants of the Crown." And Rule 2 of the West Bengal Service Rules, Part-I, apart from Rule 35 of the Government Servants' Conduct Rule 1959, contended that Rule 2 of the West Bengal Service Ru1es, Part-1, really excludes the operation of the provisions of Rule 112(b) of the P.R.B. in the instant case, rather the provisions of Government Servant's Conduct Rules are not exuded and as such, the service of the petitioner would thus be governed by the West Bengal Service Rules and consequently. He said Rules would also be applicable in the instant case. He said Rules would also be applicable in the instant case. It was also con' ended by Mr. Chatterjee that even if the said P.R.B. do not require the filing of the return or the declaration, the filing of such records by the petitioner, in any event, exposed him to the actions as taken. 8. Even if we ignore be elf c' of the repeal by Rule 35 of the Government Servants' Conduct Rule, on the terms whereof Mr. Chatterjee had not placed reliance very strongly, the effect of Rule 2 of the West Bengal Services Rules, Part-I, which is to the following effect:- "2. Subject to the provisions of the constitution of India and except where it is otherwise expressed or implied, these rules apply to all members of services and ho1ders of posts whose conditions of service the Government of West Bengal are competent to prescribe. Subject as aforesaid they also apply to- (i) any person for whose appointment and conditions of employment special provision is made by or under any law for the time being in force; (ii) any person in respect of whose service, pay and allowance or pension or any of them special provision has been made by an agreement made with him, in respect of my matter not covered by the provisions of such law or agreement; Note 1: The conditions of service of the subordinate ranks of the various police force in West Bengal are determined by or under the Acts relating to those police forces respectively. Orders governing the application of these rules to the subordinate ranks of the police forces of West Bengal are issued by Government in the Home (Police) Department. Note 2: The position with relation to these rules of officers to whom Article 312 and 314 of the Constitution of India apply is explained in the Preface," cannot be ignored or overlooked. The said Rule 2, has subject to the limitations as mentioned, application to all members of services and holders of posts whose conditions of service, the Government of West Bengal are competent to prescribe and the said Rules would also apply to class of employees as mentioned in sub-clauses (i) and (ii). The Note 1 under the said Rule 2, would also be of relevant consideration. The Note 1 under the said Rule 2, would also be of relevant consideration. The fact that the State of West Bengal are the ultimate employer of the petitioner, cannot be doubted or is in dispute. So, it is clear that they would be eligible to prescribe Rules for the employees, the petitioner in this case and that too or more particularly in view of the application and availably of Note 1 as mentioned above. 9. The above being the position, agreeing with Mr. Chatterjee, I find that the Government Servants' Conduct Rules 1959, have not been excluded, so the initiation of the proceeding in the instant case, was also not improper or without jurisdiction in view of the provisions of Rule 15(2)(a) of that Rule That being the position, the Rule shall be discharged. There will he no order as to costs. These apart, I find that there is no illegal or Irregular or improper use of jurisdiction or any special circumstances, for which the present Rule would be entertained at this second show cause stage. Although I discharge the Rule, I have it on record that all points are kept open and the petitioner, if he is so advised, would be at liberty to agitate them before the appropriate higher Tribunal and this order is made without prejudice to his further rights after the concerned order is made. 10 The stay of operation of the order as prayed for is refused. Rule discharged.