ORDER 1. LEAVE GRANTED. 2. THE RESPONDENT NATIONAL FILM DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD. IS A GOVERNMENT OF INDIA ENTERPRISE. REGULATIONS WERE FRAMED KNOWN AS THE SERVICE RULES AND REGULATIONS, 1982 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS "THE REGULATIONS") IN RESPECT OF THE EMPLOYEES OF RESPONDENT 1. THE REGULATIONS, INTER ALIA, CONTAIN CONDUCT, DISCIPLINE AND APPEAL RULES UNDER WHICH A DISCIPLINARY ACTION CAN BE TAKEN AGAINST AN EMPLOYEE FOR MISCONDUCT BY IMPOSITION OF EITHER A MINOR OR A MAJOR PENALTY. AS FAR AS THE PROCEDURE FOR IMPOSING A MAJOR PENALTY IS CONCERNED, RULE 23 LAYS DOWN THE PROCEDURE. THE SUBJECT-MATTER OF DEBATE BEFORE US IS THE CONSTRUCTION OF RULE 23(B) WHICH READS AS FOLLOWS: "23. (B) WHENEVER THE DISCIPLINARY AUTHORITY IS OF THE OPINION THAT THERE ARE GROUNDS FOR INQUIRING INTO THE TRUTH OF ANY IMPUTATION OF MISCONDUCT OR MISBEHAVIOUR AGAINST AN EMPLOYEE, IT MAY ITSELF ENQUIRE INTO, OR APPOINT ANY PUBLIC SERVANT, HEREINAFTER CALLED THE INQUIRING AUTHORITY TO INQUIRE THE TRUTH THEREOF." 3. A RETIRED JUDGE OF THE CITY CIVIL COURT WAS APPOINTED AS THE INQUIRY OFFICER FOR THE PURPOSE OF INQUIRING INTO THE TRUTH OF THE IMPUTATIONS AGAINST C THE APPELLANT. THE APPELLANT CHALLENGED THIS APPOINTMENT BY WAY OF A PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION. IT WAS THE APPELLANTS SUBMISSION THAT A RETIRED JUDGE WAS NOT A "PUBLIC SERVANT" WITHIN THE MEANING OF REGULATION 23(B). IN ADDITION THE APPELLANT CHALLENGED THE REFUSAL OF THE INQUIRY OFFICER TO MAKE AVAILABLE CERTAIN DOCUMENTS TO HIM. 4. THE WRIT PETITION WAS PARTIALLY ALLOWED INSOFAR AS IT PERTAINED TO THE D GRANT OF COPIES OF THE DOCUMENTS. HOWEVER, THE SUBMISSION RELATING TO THE COMPETENCE OF A RETIRED JUDGE TO BE APPOINTED AS AN INQUIRY OFFICER UNDER RULE 23(B) WAS REJECTED. THE HIGH COURT CONSTRUED THE WORDS "PUBLIC SERVANT" IN THE CONTEXT OF RULES 7 AND 9 OF THE 1982 REGULATIONS. 5. RULE 9 IN FACT HAS NO APPLICATION WHATSOEVER. IT PROVIDES FOR MATTERS CONCERNING THE CONDITIONS OF SERVICE OF PUBLIC SERVANTS NOT COVERED BY THE RULES AND READS THUS: "9. THE HIGH COURT CONSTRUED THE WORDS "PUBLIC SERVANT" IN THE CONTEXT OF RULES 7 AND 9 OF THE 1982 REGULATIONS. 5. RULE 9 IN FACT HAS NO APPLICATION WHATSOEVER. IT PROVIDES FOR MATTERS CONCERNING THE CONDITIONS OF SERVICE OF PUBLIC SERVANTS NOT COVERED BY THE RULES AND READS THUS: "9. IN RESPECT OF MATTERS CONCERNING THE CONDITIONS OF SERVICE NOT COVERED BY THESE RULES, OR SPECIFIED DECISION OF THE BOARD, RULES AND PROCEDURES SET FORTH IN THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIAS FRS AND SRS INCLUDING THE ORDERS AND DECISIONS OF THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA UNDER AUDIT INSTRUCTIONS, THEREUNDER, AND THE ORDERS ISSUED BY THE BPE FROM TIME TO TIME, MAY BE CONSIDERED AS GUIDING PRINCIPLES FOR DECIDING ANY INDIVIDUAL CASES ARISING IN THE CORPORATION." 6. AS FAR AS RULE 7 IS CONCERNED IT READS AS FOLLOWS: "7. INTERPRETATION NOT TO BE REPUGNANT TO ACT.- THE INTERPRETATION OF THESE REGULATIONS AND ISSUE OF ADMINISTRATIVE INSTRUCTIONS PURSUANT THERETO, SHALL NOT BE REPUGNANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF THE COMPANIES ACT, ARTICLES OF ASSOCIATION OF THE CORPORATION AND THE VARIOUS ACTS, RULES, NOTIFICATIONS, DIRECTIONS ISSUED BY THE GOVERNMENT AND OTHER STATUTORY AUTHORITIES FROM TIME TO TIME." 7. IN THIS CASE THE CENTRAL VIGILANCE COMMISSION HAD ISSUED INSTRUCTIONS PERMITTING RETIRED OFFICERS TO BE APPOINTED AS INQUIRY OFFICERS. THE WORDS "PUBLIC SERVANT" USED IN RULE 23(B) MEAN EXACTLY WHAT THEY SAY, NAMELY, THAT THE PERSON APPOINTED AS AN INQUIRY OFFICER MUST BE A SERVANT OF THE PUBLIC AND NOT A PERSON WHO WAS A SERVANT OF THE PUBLIC. THEREFORE, A RETIRED OFFICER WOULD NOT COME WITHIN THE DEFINITION OF "PUBLIC SERVANT" FOR THE PURPOSE OF RULE 23(B). RULE 7 CANNOT BE INTERPRETED TO MEAN THAT THE DIRECTION ISSUED BY THE CENTRAL VIGILANCE COMMISSION WOULD OVERRIDE ANY INTERPRETATION WHICH A COURT MAY PUT, AS A MATTER OF LAW, ON IT. 8. THE APPEAL IS ACCORDINGLY ALLOWED AND THE FINDING OF THE HIGH COURT ON THE INTERPRETATION OF RULE 23(B) IS SET ASIDE. IT WILL NOW BE OPEN TO THE RESPONDENTS TO APPOINT ANY SERVING PUBLIC SERVANT TO HOLD THE INQUIRY IF IT SO DESIRES. IT IS BEING MADE CLEAR THAT THE INQUIRY WILL PROCEED FROM THE STAGE AT WHICH IT HAS REACHED BEFORE THE INQUIRY OFFICER WHOSE APPOINTMENT IS TODAY HELD TO BE INCOMPETENT.