M. RAMA JOIS, J. ( 1 ) IN this writ petition, in which a civil servant of the Central Government in the Survey Department is questioning the legality of the initiation of disciplinary proceedings against him, the following question of law arises for consideration: whether the order made by the surveyor General of India (Head of the Department) authorising the Director, South Central Circle, hyderabad, to exercise disciplinary powers exercisable by the Director southern Circle, Bangalore, under whose jurisdiction the petitioner is working - (i) falls within rule 15 of the fundamental Rules which provides for transfer of an officer from one post to another, which power has been delegated to the Head of the department and, therefore, valid? or (ii) falls within rule 49 of the, fundamental Rules, which provides for combination of appointments which power, in relation to the category of posts concerned in this case, has not been delegated to the head of the Department and, therefore, invalid? ( 2 ) THE facts of the case to the extent necessary for the disposal of this case are as follows: The petitioner is a Senior-scale Stenographer in the survey Department of the Central government. During the year 1979, he was working in the office of the director, Southern Circle, Bangalore. A departmental enquiry was instituted against him as per communication dated 8-5-1979 (Annexure 'f' ). The misconduct alleged against the petitioner was that in a representation dated 30-4-79 addressed to the Sercetary to the Government of India, department of Science and Technology, the petitioner had quoted the contents of a telegram dated 1-2-78 and passages from a letter dated 31-5-78, both of which had been sent by the Director, Southern Circle, Bangalore, to the Surveyor General of india, though the petitioner was not authorised to have access or to possess copies of the same. The said communication was withdrawn as per order dated 27-6-79 (Annexure 'h') and a fresh departmental enquiry was instituted on the same charge and a communication of the same date was sent to the petitioner (Annexure 'j'), the relevant portion of the communication reads: -Telegrams: SURSOUTHCENT. SURVEY OF INDIA south Central Circle Office, 3-6-222, HIMMAYATHNAGAR p. B. No. 1004, hyderabad-500029 (AP ). No. CS-44-S|4-A-41 (b), southern Circle. Dated, the 27th June 1979. Memorandum the undersigned proposes to hold an enquiry against Shri V. Govindarajan, Stenographer (Senior Scale) no. SURVEY OF INDIA south Central Circle Office, 3-6-222, HIMMAYATHNAGAR p. B. No. 1004, hyderabad-500029 (AP ). No. CS-44-S|4-A-41 (b), southern Circle. Dated, the 27th June 1979. Memorandum the undersigned proposes to hold an enquiry against Shri V. Govindarajan, Stenographer (Senior Scale) no. 24 Party (S. C.), under Rule 14 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) rules, 1965. The substance of the imputations of misconduct or misbehavior in respect of which the inquiry is proposed to be held is set out in the enclosed statement of articles of charges (Annexure-I ). A statement of the imputations of mis-conduct or misbehaviour in support of each article of charge is enclosed (Annexure-II ). A list of documents by which, and a list of witnesses by whom, the articles of charges are proposed to be sustained are also enclosed (Annexures III and IV ). 2. Shri V. Govindarajan is directed to submit within 10 days of the receipt of this Memorandum a written statement of his defence and also to state whether he desires to be heard in person. Sd|- (K. Satyanarayana) director, South Central Circle and appointing Authority for southern Circle (Disiciplinary Authority ). "the petitioner contends that as he has been working in the office of the director, Southern Circle, Bangalore, the Director, South Central Circle, hyderabad, had no legal authority to initiate disciplinary proceedings against him. ( 3 ) THE stand taken on behalf of the respondents is as follows: The president of India is the appointing authority for the posts of Directors. K. Sathayanarayana was appointed as Director by order dated 22-4-78 (Annexure P-5 ). He had been posted as Director of South Central Circle, hyderabad. The Head of the Department, namely, the Surveyor General of India had authorised K. Sathyanarayana, Director South Central circle, to exercise the powers of the appointing authority, in respect of officials in the office of the Director of southern Circle, Bangalore, as the office of the said Director was vacant. The said order is dated 31-5-79 (Annexure R-1 ). Survey of India, Surveyor General's office, Post Box No. 37, dehra Dun (UP) India, dated the 31st May 1979 19th Jyst 1901 (Saka) office Memorandum No. E2-28740| 1442. The said order is dated 31-5-79 (Annexure R-1 ). Survey of India, Surveyor General's office, Post Box No. 37, dehra Dun (UP) India, dated the 31st May 1979 19th Jyst 1901 (Saka) office Memorandum No. E2-28740| 1442. Shri K. Satyanarayana, Director, south Central Circle, Survey of india, Hyderabad, is hereby authorised to exercise the powers of the "appointing Authority" in respect of Group 'c' employees of Southern, circle, Survey of India, Bangalore with immediate effect till such time the post of Director, Southern circle is taken over by regular incumbent. Sd,-K. L. KHOSLA, major General surveyor General of India. " in view of the specific authorisation, the contention urged for the petitioner that the initiation of disciplinary proceedings against him by K. Sathyanarayana, Director, South Central circle, Hyderabad, was without authority of law, is untenable. ( 4 ) THERE is no dispute that authority competent to initiate disciplinary action against the petitioner, in accordance with the provisions of the central Civil Services (Classification, control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 is the director of the Bangalore Circle, as according to the rules, the Director, who is the Head of the Circle, is the competent authority. There is also no dispute that K. Satyanarayana had been appointed to the post of Director by the President of India and that he had been posted as Director of the south Central Circle, Hyderabad. But the controversy is, according to the petitioner, the officer, who had been functioning as Director of South Central Circle, Hyderabad, could not exercise the disciplinary powers conferred on the Director, Southern circle, Bangalore, unless he was also appointed as Director of the Bangalore circle by the appointing authority, namely, the President of India according to the respondents, as the head of the Department authorised the Director. South Central Circle, to exercise disciplinary powers conferred on the Director of Southern circle, Bangalore, the initiation of disciplinary proceedings are valid. These rival contentions urged for the petitioner and the respondents, respectively, have given rise to the question of law set out in paragrpah-1. ( 5 ) IN support of the stand taken on behalf of the respondents, learned advocate General made the following submissions. Rule 15 of the Fundamental Rules confers power on the President to transfer a Government servant from one post to another. ( 5 ) IN support of the stand taken on behalf of the respondents, learned advocate General made the following submissions. Rule 15 of the Fundamental Rules confers power on the President to transfer a Government servant from one post to another. The said power has been validly delegated, which is permissible as per rule 6 of the fundamental Rules, to all the Heads of Department in full. Therefore, the surveyor General, who is the Head of the Department has the power to transfer the person functioning as director of South Central Circle, hyderabad as Director of Southern circle, Bangalore. In the present case instead of transferring K. Sathyanarayana from Hyderabad to Bangalore, the Head of the Department had authorised the Director of South central Circle, Hyderabad, to exercise some of the powers exercisable by the Director Southern Circle, Bangalore. The power to tranfer, which is a larger power, must necessarily include the power to authorise an officer to discharge some of the duties of another post, which is vacant. Hence the order made by Surveyor general authorising the Director south Central Circle, Hyderabad to excicise disciplinary powers against class III officials exercisable by the director, Southern Circle, Bangalore, was perfectly valid and consequently, the initiation of disciplinary proceedings was also valid. ( 6 ) SRI A. G. Holla, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, did not dispu e that the power of the President to transfer a Government servant from one post to another under rule 15 of the Fundamental Rules had been delegated in full to the Head of the department. But, his first contention was that the Surveyor General, by virtue of the said delegation, could have transferred the incumbent, who had been posted and functioning as director of South Central Circle, hyderabad to the post of Director, southern Circle, Bangalore, but this power did not include the power to authorise the Director of South central Circle, Hyderabad, to exercise the powers of the Director of Southern circle, Bangalore also. He submitted that such an authorisation is in the nature of combination of appointments specifically provided for in rule 49 of the Fundamental Rules and the said power had not been delegated to the head of the Department. 8. He submitted that such an authorisation is in the nature of combination of appointments specifically provided for in rule 49 of the Fundamental Rules and the said power had not been delegated to the head of the Department. 8. The second contention urged for the petitioner was that even if there was delegation of power to the Head of the Department, the Surveyor general was not the Head of the department at all, as there was no notification issued to that effect by the Central Government and in the absence of such a notification, the Secretary to the Government of india in the concerned department would be the Head of the Department and, therefore, the order of the Surveyor General authorising the Director, south Central Circle, Hyderabad to hold disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner was bad. The third contention urged was that the initiation of disciplinary proceedings was mala fide and illegal. It is unnecessary to consider these contentions as I am accepting the first contention. 11. The answer to the first contention depends upon the interpretation of rules 15 and 49 of the Fundamental rules and the extent of delegation of powers made by the Central Government in exercise of its powers under rule 6 of the Fundamental Rules. Rule 15 to the extent relevant to this case reads as follows: f. R. 15 (a) The President may transfer a Government servant from one post to another; (Rest omitted as unnecessary) rule 49 of the Fundamental Rules reads as follows:"f. R. 49. The Central Government may appoint a Government servant already holding a post in a substantive or officiating capacity, to officiate, as a temporary measure, in one or more of other independent posts at one time under that Government. The Central Government may appoint a Government servant already holding a post in a substantive or officiating capacity, to officiate, as a temporary measure, in one or more of other independent posts at one time under that Government. In such cases, his pay is regulated as follows: (i) Where a Government servant is formally appointed to hold full charge of the duties of a higher post in the same office as his own and in the same cadre line of promotion, in addition to his ordinary duties, he shall be allowed the pay admissible to him, if he is appointed to officiate in the higher post, unless the competent authority reduces his officiating pay under rule 35; but no additional pay shall, however, be allowed for performing the duties of a lower post; (ii) Where a Government servant is formally appointed to hold dual charges of two posts in the same cadre in the same office carrying identical scales of pay, no additional pay shall be admissible irrespective of the period of dual charges: provided that if the Government servant is appointed to an additional post which carries a special pay, he shall be allowed such special pay; (iii) where a Government servant is formally appointed to hold charge of another post or posts which is or are not in the same office, or which though in the same office, is or are not in the same cadre line of promotion, he shall be allowed the pay of the higher post, or of the highest post if he holds charge of more than two posts, in addition to ten per cent of the presumptive pay of the, additional post or posts, if the additional charge held for a period exceeding 39 days but not exceeding 3 months; provided that if in any particular case, it is considered necessary that the Government servant should hold charge of another post or posts for a period exceeding 3 months, the concurrence of the Ministry of finance shall be obtained for the payment of the additional pay beyond the period of 3 months. "the delegation of powers made are set out in Appendix-3 to the Fundamental Rules. The relevant portion of the same reads as follows :