JUDGMENT M. P. Singh, J. 1. In the Public Service Commission there is a post of Joint Secretary, selection to this post is made from amongst Officers of the Uttar Pradesh Civil Services (Executive Branch) placed in special grade. The Incumbent of this post draws pay in the special grade as may be admissible to him from time to time plus special pay of Rs. 250/- per month. 2. The petitioner being a member of the U. P. Civil Services in Special Grade was posted as Joint Secretary on 11-8-1989 in the U. P. Public Service Commission, Allahabad (for short the Commission). Sri Ram Yadav was posted as Controller of Examination in the Commission. On account of his ill-health the Government passed an order on 23rd March, 1992 authorising the petitioner to take over as Controller of Examination. It was only a local change but not a permanent arrangement as is evident from the order dated 23-3-1992 itself. 3. In connection with the leakage of question paper of General Studies of the Indian Administrative Services (Preliminary Examination) 1992 held on 7-6-1992, a first information report was lodged by one Ajai Kumar Singh, a student leader of Allahabad University under section 409 IPC and section 5 (1) of the Official's Secrets Act on the same day. 4. The petitioner was arrested on 7-6-1992. Ha was granted bail on the next day by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate. The Government passed an order of suspension on 9 6-11992. The said order is under challenge. The case set up by the petitioner was that he was in no way connected with the offence. The order of suspension is wholly without jurisdiction. It has been passed on (Irrelevant considerations. The order is arbitrary and discriminatory. 5. The suspension order could have been passed only on an objective consideration of the material available to the Government. The order has been passed without application of mind. Unless there was a departmental enquiry in contemplation, the order could not have been passed. Except for some newspaper report, there was no other material before the Government on that day. 6. The order has been passed art the instance of Mr. N K. S. Gaur, the Minister for Higher Education, Uttar Pradesh who persuaded the Chief Minister, U. P. to take immediate action. Except for some newspaper report, there was no other material before the Government on that day. 6. The order has been passed art the instance of Mr. N K. S. Gaur, the Minister for Higher Education, Uttar Pradesh who persuaded the Chief Minister, U. P. to take immediate action. After hearing Sri V B. Upadhyay, the senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Sri V. M. Sahi, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Commission, we are of the view that the order of suspension suffers from no error apparent on the face of the record, APPOINTED OR POSTED AS JOINT SECRETARY. 7. The main thrust of the arguments of Sri V. B. Upadhya was that in view of the Regulation 17 (1) of the U. P. Public Service Commission (Condition of Service) Regulation, 1937 (for short the Regulations) the appointment of the petitioner as Joint Secretary was made by the Governor in Consultation with the Commission so he became a full time employee of the Commission. The Government, therefore, could not have passed the order of suspension without consulting the Commission. 8. In order to appreciate the contention of the learned counsel, the relevant provisions of the Regulations may be looked into. The Regulations of 1937 were framed by the Government under Sub-Section (2) of Section 265 of Government of India Act 1935 making provision with respect to the number of staff and their conditions of service. Article 318 of the Constitution is equivalent to section 265 of the Government of India Act. Article 313 of the Constitution provides for the transitional provision. According to it the said Regulations are applicable with some, modifications. 9. Chapter II of the Regulation deals with the leave, pension, passage allowance, travelling allowance, compensatory allowance and provident fund regarding the Chairman and members of tike Commission. 10. Under Regulation 15, rules ware framed on 18- 8-1941 making it clear that even for Chairman and Members, where there is no provision in the Regulations, the rules applicable to the Government Servant will be applicable. Chapter III deals with the staff of the Commission. The staff includes one Secretary, one Deputy or Joint Secretary and such number of gazetted ministerial officials including under Secretary, son-gazetted ministerial officials and interior servants as the Governor may, from time to time, determine. This Chapter contains rule 17 on which the petitioner is depending. Chapter III deals with the staff of the Commission. The staff includes one Secretary, one Deputy or Joint Secretary and such number of gazetted ministerial officials including under Secretary, son-gazetted ministerial officials and interior servants as the Governor may, from time to time, determine. This Chapter contains rule 17 on which the petitioner is depending. It runs as follows :- "17. (1) The Secretary and the Deputy Secretary or the joint Secretary shall be appointed by the Governor in consultation with the Commission. (2) The Under Secretary shall be appointed by the Commission with the approval of the Governor. (3) The normal tenure of office of the Secretary and the Deputy Secretary or the Joint Secretary shall not exceed three years provided that the Governor may, after consultation with the Commission, extend the tenure of the Secretary and the Deputy Secretary or the Joint Secretary by any period not exceeding two years " 11. According to the petitioner he was appointed as a Joint Secretary by the Governor in consultation with the Commission. It was a fresh appointment though his lien remained undisturbed in the U. P. Civil Services. If the Government desired to initiate disciplinary proceedings against him, it could not have done without consulting the Commission. We are of the view that the contention is misconceived. 12. There is no dispute that the petitioner is a permanent government servant belonging to the U. P. Civil Services. He continues as a government servant even today. In order to find out whether he was given a fresh appointment or he was only transferred and posted in the Commission, the contents of the order dated 11-8-1989 has to be looked into which runs as follows ;- ' Sri Krishna Murari Pandey, Additional Officer Incharge, Maghmela 1989, Allahabad has been transferred and posted as Joint Secretary, Public Service Commission, Allahabad against a vacant post." After reading the said order it cannot be said that it was a fresh appointment. In addition to that on 23-3-1992 he was authorised to work as Controller of Examination in place of Sri R. P. Yadav who had not been keeping good health. 13. The word "appointed" has a reference of selection for an office or position. The word "posting" has a reference to fixing the officer at a particular place or to a station. 13. The word "appointed" has a reference of selection for an office or position. The word "posting" has a reference to fixing the officer at a particular place or to a station. The problem of interpretation is a problem of meaning of words and their effectiveness. But words of any language are capable of referring to two different meanings in different context and times. The words should be given the meaning in contest to which they have been used. In selecting out different interpretation the Court will always adopt that, which is just, reasonable, sensible and also should avoid the anomaly. There should always be an attempt to avoid inconsistency and repugnancy. So the word "appointed" means "posted." 14. Before examining sub regulation (1) of Regulation 17, it will be relevant to examine regulation 18 (ii) which provides that selection to the post of Joint Secretary shall be made from amongst the officers of the U. P. Civil Services (Executive Branch) placed in special grade. Thus the Government has to select an officer of that special grade. The person so selected has to be posted as a Joint Secretary, of course in consultation with the Commission. A reading of regulation 17 (1) along with Regulation 18 (ii) makes it clear that only on officer of a particular grade of State Civil Service can be posted as a Joint Secretary. So we are of the view that the word 'appointed' used in regulation 17 (1) has to be read as 'posted'. 15. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner can be rejected on another ground. Once he was appointed as a member of the State Civil Service, could he be given a fresh appointment during the continuance of his earlier appointment ? Of course the appointment on deputation can be made but the officer will have his lien on his post, in case if the petitioner treats the present posting of Joint Secretary in the Commission as a fresh appointment he will cease to have any lien on the post which he was occupying before he joined the Commission. 16. The petitioner may remain a full time employee of the Commission but will be under the control of U. P. Government so far his service conditions are concerned. Only day-to-day working will be controlled by the Rules and Regulations applicable to the staff of the Commission. 16. The petitioner may remain a full time employee of the Commission but will be under the control of U. P. Government so far his service conditions are concerned. Only day-to-day working will be controlled by the Rules and Regulations applicable to the staff of the Commission. Moreover it is not the case of the petitioner that his lien in the State service came to an end on his appointment in the Commission. 17. Apart from this, Regulation 19 (I) of the Regulation is equally important for this case which provides- "In respect of all other matters the conditions of service of the Secretary. Deputy-Secretory, Joint Secretary shall be same as those of other members of the Service to which they belong." 18. Since the Regulations did not contain any specific provision for taking disciplinary action, the Government was perfectly justified in resorting to the provisions of Civil Services (classification, Control and Appeal Rules which govern the services of the petitioner. The petitioner himself has stalled in paragraph 3 of the writ petition that he was posted as Joint Secretary but in the supplementary affidavit he has set up a contradictory case that it was not a posting but a fresh appointment. 19. The post of Joint Secretary of the Commission is a cadre post of the Provincial Civil Services (Executive Branch). Regulation 17 (3) provides that normal tenure of the office of Secretary, Deputy Secretary and the Joint Secretary shall not exceed three years provided that the Governor may after consultation with the Commission extend the tenure of the Secretary and the Deputy Secretary or the Joint Secretary by a period not exceeding two years. This again shows that it was only a posting for a fixed period. 20. The word "consultation with the Commission" used in Regulation 17 (I) has a purpose behind it. The working of the Public Service Commission is entirely different than the general administration. Therefore the person to be posted as Joint Secretary should be acceptable to the Commission looking to his ability to do the work with which the Commission is concerned- It does not mean that the Government ceases to have control over the officer who is transferred and posted as Joint Secretary. Thus the word "consultation" has a very limited scope in Rule 17 (1). Thus the word "consultation" has a very limited scope in Rule 17 (1). It was not necessary for the Government to consult the Commission before passing the order of suspension. The petitioner is not entitled for any protection under Regulation 17 (1). On the other hand in view of Regulation 19 (i) the condition of service shall be the same as those of other members of the service to which he belongs. 21. After giving our careful consideration to the matter we are of the view that the petitioner was not appointed as a joint Secretary but he was only transferred and posted under the orders of the U P. Government. ORDER UNDER RULE 49-A (i) or 49 (v) OF THE U. P. CIVIL SERVICES (CLASSIFICATION, CONTROL and APPEALS) RULES. 22. A government servant can be placed under suspension under two contingencies : firstly, under Rule 49-A of the Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeals) Rules when an enquiry is either contemplated, or is pending. Secondly, under rule 49-A (,1-A) when an investigation, inquiry or trial relating to a criminal charge is pending against him. The word 'inquiry' used in [Rule 49-A (i) refers to the formal departmental inquiry and not to any informal preliminary or fact finding inquiry as held by a Full Bench of this Court in the case State of U. P. v, Jai Singh Dixit, 1974 ALJ 862 and State of U. P. v, Raghunath Singh,, 1976 ALJ 171. 23. The word 'contemplation' has also been considered at length in the case of Jai Singh Dixit (supra) in which it has been held that the departmental enquiry could not be said to be contemplated without an objective consideration of material. It has a reference to view mentally, to mediate upon, ponder and study. Thus the order of suspension has been passed in contemplation of an enquiry. 24. Under Rule 49 (v) the order of suspension is passed by way of punishment and not where the enquiry is in contemplation or is pending, Since a clear order has been passed under Rule 49-A (i) of the Rules, the application of Rule 49 (v) is thereby excluded. The Government has not passed any order by way of penalty Had. it been an order under that rule, then the Government would have given the reasons for punishing the petitioner. The Government has not passed any order by way of penalty Had. it been an order under that rule, then the Government would have given the reasons for punishing the petitioner. Accordingly we are of the view that the case is squarely covered under the provisions of Rule 49-A (i) of the Civil Services (Classification, control and Appeals) Rules and not under rule 49 (v) as contended by the learned counsel. JURISDICTION OF GOVERNMENT TO IPASS SUSPENSION ORDER 25. Since we have held that the petitioner was not given a fresh appointment but being a member of U. P. Civil Services (Executive Branch) Special grade, he was transferred and posted as Joint Secretary in the Commission, the Government has full control over him in regard to his service conditions. Accordingly the impugned order cannot be said to be without jurisdiction. There was no necessity to consult the Commission for initiating disciplinary proceedings. The Government has full jurisdiction to pass the order of suspension. OBJECTIVE CONSIDERATION OF M1ATERIAL 26. The petitioner's case is that there was no material before the Government and the impugned order has been passed without objective consideration of any material. Except the newspaper report there was no other material before it on 9th June, 1992. The Union Public Service Commission had deputed its Additional Secretary Mr. R. N. Swami to enquire into the matter and report. Mr, Swami came at Allahabad in the morning of 9th June 1992 for enquiry. The Government has prejudged the whole matter and came to the conclusion that the petitioner misconducted himself. We do not find any substance in this contention as well. It has been stated in the counter affidavit that from time to time the Government had been apprised of all the facts on telephone in full details by the Chairman and the Secretary relating to illegal act done by the petitioner. This telephonic message, from the Commission, was subsequently confirmed in the letter sent by the Chairman to the State Government on 10th June, 1992. 27. Accordingly we are of the view that the telephonic conversation with the Chairman and Secretary provided sufficient material to the Government to consider objectively and pass the impugned order. The Government did consider objectively before passing the order Admittedly, Mr. Swami, Additional Secretary, came to Allahabad from Delhi to enquire into the matter and he submitted his report co 10-6-92. Accordingly we are of the view that the telephonic conversation with the Chairman and Secretary provided sufficient material to the Government to consider objectively and pass the impugned order. The Government did consider objectively before passing the order Admittedly, Mr. Swami, Additional Secretary, came to Allahabad from Delhi to enquire into the matter and he submitted his report co 10-6-92. But it is hardly of any relevance, to look into the validity of the order already passed by the Government. ARBITRARY OR DISCRIMINATORY+ 28. It was contended on behalf of the petitioner that there were three accused parsons in the first information report, namely, Tribhuwan Bhatnagar, the clerk, the petitioner and also the Secretary. No action has been taken against the Secretary. This amounts to discrimination. There is no merit in this submission. We have gone through the first information report very carefully. It mentions the names of only two accused persons giving the serial numbers (1) Tribhuwan Bhatnagar, clerk of the Public Service Commission, and (2) K. M. Pandey, Controller Examination and Sachiv. 29. The petitioner wants to take advantage of the ignorance of the Informant about the exact post which the petitioner was holding. He has described the petitioner as Controller of Examination and Sachiv instead of Sanyukt Sachiv. It can be even a case of just an error. Instead of Joint Secretary, the word Secretary was written. Apart from this, Sri V. M. Sahai, learned counsel for the respondent, has placed the entire first Information report and we do not find amy allegation against the Secretary. So no action could be taken against him on the basis of the said first information report. On the contrary if an action was taken against him, that would have been arbitrary. The impugned order does not suffer from the vice of arbitrariness or discrimination. POLITICALLY MOTIVATED ORDER 30. The petitioner has made a very vague allegation against Sri N. K. S. Gaur, the Minister for Higher Education. U. P. According to him, he got the order passed by the Chief Minister. Neither Mr Gaur nor the Chief Minister is a party. In their absence the allegation cannot be enquired Into. The general averments made against them do not inspire any confidence. Accordingly we are of the view that very vague allegations have been made by the petitioner purposely to make out a case for interference. Neither Mr Gaur nor the Chief Minister is a party. In their absence the allegation cannot be enquired Into. The general averments made against them do not inspire any confidence. Accordingly we are of the view that very vague allegations have been made by the petitioner purposely to make out a case for interference. We are of the view that in the absence of any cogent material the order cannot be said to be politically motivated. After giving our careful consideration to the matter we are of the view that the order does not suffer from any error apparent on the face of the record or any other legal infirmity". The writ petition being devoid of merit is dismissed. The interim order dated 19-6-1992 stands discharged. Petition dismissed.