M. RAMA JOIS, J. ( 1 ) IN this writ petition presented by an asst. Executive Engineer of the PWD working on deputation on the establishment of the Town Municipal Council, dandeli in the Dist. of UK, the following question of Law arises for consideration : whether the Divnl. Commr. of the division has the power to place any Asst executive Engineers who are Cl. II officers of the PWD under suspension ? ( 2 ) THE petition has come up for preliminary hearing after notice to the respondent. By consent of both the counsel the petition is taken up for final hearing and is disposed of by this order. ( 3 ) THE facts of the case, in brief, are as follows : The petitioner is holding the post of an Asst. Executive Engineer in the pwd of the State Government. He is a cl. II officer. The services of the petitioner were placed at the disposal of the dandeli Municipal Council on 10 2-1981. The terms of deputation were set out in the Annexure to the letter dt. 20th Octr. , 1981 addressed by the Government to the accountant General, copy of which is produced as Annexure-A. The contents of the annexure indicates that the petitioner's service during the period he was serving on the establishment of the Dandeli Municipal Council was treated as foreign service and he was also entitled to foreign service allowance. The impugned order dt. 25-1 83 has been made by the Divnl. Commr. , Belgaum Dn. By the said order, the petitioner has been placed under suspension pending inquiry. The petitioner has challenged the legality of the said order on the ground that the Divisional commr. had no authority to place the petitioner under suspension. ( 4 ) SRI S. V. Narasimhan, learned High court Government Pleader appearing for the Divnl. Commr. submitted that there was a mistake in the order of the Divnl. Commr. , in that the Rule under which the divnl. Commr. had exercised the power was stated to be R. 8 (II) of the Rules, but actually, the correct Rule was R. 10 (8) (II) of the Rules. Commr. submitted that there was a mistake in the order of the Divnl. Commr. , in that the Rule under which the divnl. Commr. had exercised the power was stated to be R. 8 (II) of the Rules, but actually, the correct Rule was R. 10 (8) (II) of the Rules. The said rule reads :"10 (8) : Notwithstanding anything contained in sub rule (1), the following authorities may impose suspension pending inquiry, as hereunder : class of Member of the State Civil Service authority which may impose suspension (i) Members of the Karna-taka Judicial Service holding posts inferior to the post of Dist, Judge high Court of Karnataka (ii) Cl. II officers of the Kar. Administrative Service that is Tahsildars and officers holding equivalent posts in the allied departments under the administrative control of the Divnl. Commrs. Divisional Commr. "learned counsel contended that the divnl. Commr. of the respective division was empowered to suspend Cl. II officers of various departments of the State government coming under his administrative control. He, therefore, argued that as the petitioner was at the relevant point of time working at Dandeli Municipal Council, of which the Divnl. Commr. was the controlling officer under the provisions of the Kar. Municipalities Act, 1964, he had the necessary power to place the petitioner under suspension. ( 5 ) SRI H. B. Datar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, contended that r. 10 (8) (ii) only empowered the Divisional commr. to suspend Cl. II officers of the kar. Administrative Service and officers holding equivalent posts in the allied departments under the administrative control of the Dlvnl. Commr. and that the Cl. II officers of the PWD were not officers coming under the administrative control of the dlvnl. Commr. ( 6 ) THE wording of the rule, extracted above, indicates that the Divnl. Commr. is given special power to place Cl. II officers of the Kar. Administrative Service under suspension. It is explained, that the expression 'administrative service' would include Tahsildars and officers holding equivalent posts under allied departments under the administrative control of the divnl. Commr. The PWD does not come under the administrative control of the dlvnl. Commr. and cannot also be regarded as a department allied to the Kar. Administrative Service. Though the learned counsel for the respondent maintained that pwd was a department allied to the Kar. Commr. The PWD does not come under the administrative control of the dlvnl. Commr. and cannot also be regarded as a department allied to the Kar. Administrative Service. Though the learned counsel for the respondent maintained that pwd was a department allied to the Kar. Administrative Service, he was unable to substantiate the said submission. Alternatively he, however, submitted that so long the petitioner was serving in a Municipal Council and in respect of Municipal councils, the Divnl. Commr. was the controlling authority under the provisions of the Kar. Municipalities Act, the Divnl. Commr. must be regarded as having administrative control over the petitioner. ( 7 ) I find it difficult to accede to the submission. R. 10 (8) (ii) of the rules empowers the Divnl. Commr. to suspend Cl. II officers of the Kar. Administrative Service and officers holding equivalent posts in the allied departments. Certainly, a municipal Council which is an autonomous body constituted under an enactment cannot be regarded as a department of the state Government. The power under R. 10 (8) (ii) does not extend to the officers serving on deputation under a local authority. To a case like this, actually R. 15 of the Rules gets attracted. This is a special provision relating to Lent officers. In the case of Lent Officers R. 15 provides, that the borrowing authority shall have the powers of appointing authority and disciplinary authority. But this power is made expressly subject to the condition that the borrowing authority can place a lent Officer under suspension or institute disciplinary proceedings against him, only after the prior approval of the lending authority. In view of the said specific rule it was open for the Municipal Council to institute disciplinary proceedings or place the petitioner under suspension provided it had secured prior approval of the lending authority, which in the present case is the State Government. It was also open for the prescribed authority of the pwd under the KCS (CCA) Rules, to exercise the power of suspension or institution of disciplinary iuquiry under the relevant provisions of the said Rules. ( 8 ) I am unable to agree that the Divnl. Commr. is given the power under R. 10 (8) (ii) of the Rules to place Cl. ( 8 ) I am unable to agree that the Divnl. Commr. is given the power under R. 10 (8) (ii) of the Rules to place Cl. II officers of the PWD under suspension even if those officers have been sent on deputation to a Municipality functioning under the provisions of the Kar. Municipalities Act, 1964. As already stated, a Municipality not being a department of Government cannot be considered as a department allied to the Kar. Administrative Service. For the aforesaid reasons, I make the following order : (i) The writ petition is allowed. (ii) The impugned order made by the divnl Commr. , Belgaum Dn. dt. 25-1-83 (Annexure H) is quashed. (iii) Sri S. V. Naraslmhan is permitted to file his memo of appearance in two weeks. --- *** --- .