Uma Nath Singh and Virendra Kumar Dixit, JJ.— This order shall also govern the disposal of connected Special Appeal No. 170 of 2012. On due consideration, and also for the reason that there is no opposition from the State, the prayer for condonation of delay in filing connected Special Appeal No. 170 of 2012 is allowed. Thus, the delay in filing the special appeal as pointed out by the Registry, is hereby condoned. 2. This special appeal has been filed against the judgment and order dated 6.2.2012 passed by a learned single Judge in Writ Petition No. 40 (S/S) of 2011, dismissing the writ petition of appellant-writ petitioner. 3. It appears that the appellant-writ petitioner was appointed as a cook by an order passed by the Commandant, 43rd Battalion, Etah in March, 1982. Later, he was transferred to 35th Battalion P.A.C., Lucknow. His work and conduct were found generally satisfactory and there was no complaint pending against him. 4. The service rules that would govern the case of appellant-writ petitioner is said to be the 'Uttar Pradesh Government Servant Group-D Employees Service Rules, 1985' (For short the 1985 Rules). Thereafter another set of Rules called the U. P. Police Group-D Employees Service Rules, 2009 came into force on 28.8.2009. (Hereinafter to be called the 2009 Rules). Under the 2009 Rules, Group-D employees working in the police force were also included for the purpose of application of the Rules. Thus they became the members of police department. It seems that when the appellant-writ petitioner was working with 35th Battalion P.A.C., some allegations were made against him. It was alleged that on 15.8.2009, he alongwith 22 to 25 other class-IV employees of the police department raised certain demands which was made the basis for instituting inquiry under Rule 14 (1) of the U. P. Police Officers of Subordinate Rank (Punishment and Appeal), Rules, 1991 (for short 'the 1991 Rules'). Finally, vide the order dated 12.8.2009 there was a direction to take penal action against the appellant-writ petitioner and similarly situated other class-IV employees. Thus, they were proceeded against to face departmental inquiry. On the conclusion of inquiry, the appellant was held guilty of staging dharna and Demonstration on 15.8.2009 near Mantri Awas, (Minister's House) Gomti Nagar, alongwith his colleagues. Finally, vide the order dated 12.8.2009 there was a direction to take penal action against the appellant-writ petitioner and similarly situated other class-IV employees. Thus, they were proceeded against to face departmental inquiry. On the conclusion of inquiry, the appellant was held guilty of staging dharna and Demonstration on 15.8.2009 near Mantri Awas, (Minister's House) Gomti Nagar, alongwith his colleagues. The Inquiry Officer submitted his report before the Disciplinary Authority namely Commandant, 35th Battalion P.A.C. (Respondent No. 3), who issued a show cause notice dated 9.10.2010 against the appellant-writ petitioner. He required him to show cause as to why he should not be dismissed from the service. 5. The appellant-writ petitioner submitted his reply on 18.11.2010 and denied all the allegations levelled against him in the report. The appellant-writ petitioner also filed a Writ Petition No.7743 (S/S) of 2010, Krishna Murari v. State of U. P. and others, to challenge the show cause notice. 6. The main grounds, inter alia, that were taken in the writ petition are that the appellant-writ petitioner was proceeded under the 1991 Rules whereas he should have been, after the enforcement of the 2009 Rules, subjected to department action under the U. P. Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999 (for short 'the 1999 Rules'). It was also the contention that the police authorities did not act in a bona fide manner and rather took a punitive action against the appellant-writ petitioner at the behest of respondent No. 2 namely Director General of Police (U. P.). It appears that the writ petition was listed on 15.11.2010 and the respondents were directed to file their counter-affidavits. However, during the pendency of writ petition the Commandant dismissed the appellant-writ petitioner from service by passing a mechanical order on account of bias. 7. In this background, we have heard learned counsel for parties and perused the records. 8. Learned counsel Sri Amit Bose, appearing for appellant-writ petitioner reiterated the contentions as raised in the writ petition. 9. On the other hand, learned counsel for State submitted that the appellant-writ petitioner who was working as a cook, with the enforcement of the 2009 Rules (which was framed under the U. P. Police Act), became a part of the U. P. Police, and. thus became liable to be governed by the 1991 Rules. 10. 9. On the other hand, learned counsel for State submitted that the appellant-writ petitioner who was working as a cook, with the enforcement of the 2009 Rules (which was framed under the U. P. Police Act), became a part of the U. P. Police, and. thus became liable to be governed by the 1991 Rules. 10. On due consideration of rival submissions, we are of the view that earlier the service conditions of the appellant-writ petitioner were governed by the 1985 Rules which after notification of the 2009 Rules stood superseded. However, the matters not precisely covered by the 2009 Rules were to be governed by the 1999 Rules as provided vide Rule 29 of the 2009 Rules. 11. Admittedly, upto the stage of serving of charge-sheet, the respondents followed the procedure as prescribed under Rule 7 of the 1999 Rules. It was only thereafter that they deviated from the correct procedure. They acted under some wrong impression that since the 2009 Rules have been framed in exercise of powers under the U. P. Police Act, it has changed the status of the appellant-writ petitioner from being a cook to an officer. The 2009 Rules do not provide so anywhere in any provision, and had there been a clear intention that the appellant-writ petitioner, being a Group-D employee, has been included in the category of subordinate police officers, the 2009 Rules would have explicitly provided it, particularly in the matter of disciplinary proceedings. 12. On the other hand, there is a complete diversion under Rule 29 of the 2009 Rules which contained the provision that all such matters not specifically covered by the 2009 Rules would be governed by the 1999 Rules generally applicable in the case of Government servant in the State. 13. That apart, if we compare Rule 7 of the 1999 Rules with the corresponding provisions of the 1991 Rules, we find that Rule 7 of the 1999 Rules contains a comprehensive procedure and looks to be more reasonable in comparison with the provisions as contained in the 1991 Rules. 14. Thus, the appellant-writ petitioner would be liable to face the inquiry, if so warranted, only under the provisions of 1999 Rules, and the department misdirected itself for the reasons best known to it in adopting the procedure and proceeding against the appellant-writ petitioner under 1991 Rules. 15. 14. Thus, the appellant-writ petitioner would be liable to face the inquiry, if so warranted, only under the provisions of 1999 Rules, and the department misdirected itself for the reasons best known to it in adopting the procedure and proceeding against the appellant-writ petitioner under 1991 Rules. 15. Thus, we set aside the impugned judgment as well as the punishment order and grant liberty to the respondent to proceed under 1999 Rules from the stage of charge-sheet from where they have followed the procedure as prescribed under the 1991 Rules and not under the 1999 Rules. Consequently, the service of the petitioner shall stand restored to the status he was occupying when the charge-sheet had been served upon him under 1999 Rules. Thus, the appellant-writ petitioner would be entitled to get the consequential service and pecuniary benefits including the amounts which he would be entitled to get upon the reinstatement in service under the relevant service rules. 16. Thus, the special appeal is allowed and the impugned order passed in the aforesaid writ petition is hereby set aside. _____________