ORDER : 1. The petitioner has preferred the present writ petition praying for the following reliefs: “1. That this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a appropriate Writ quashing Annexure P/6 & P/23 being patently illegal arbitrary and capricious and Violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 2. That this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to call the entire records of the case from the Respondents. 3. That Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue appropriate Order/direction commanding the Respondents to compensate the Petitioner for the mental agonies caused to him by their detrimental action. 4. Any other relief, which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper, may also be passed in favour of the petitioner together with cost of the petition.” 2. Brief facts of the case, as projected by the petitioner, are that the petitioner was initially appointed as Assistant Treasury Officer in the District Treasury, Mahasamund vide order dated 07.02.2005. Subsequently, vide order dated 20.06.2006, the petitioner was sent on deputation in the Panchyat and Rural Development Department as Assistant Accounts Officer. Thereafter on 14.07.2012, the petitioner was repatriated back to his Parent Department (Finance Department). In consonance with the Order Dated 14.07.2012, the Borrower Department vide order dated 30.07.2012 relieved the Petitioner with an instruction to immediately joined at the new place of posting. The Petitioner immediately on 31.07.2012 joined the Service of his Parent Department in the Office of Senior Treasury Officer, District Treasury, Bilaspur (C.G) as ‘Assistant Treasury Officer’ and since then he was continuously working there. Subsequently, a Chargesheet Dated 10.12.2012 was communicated to the Petitioner on 02.01.2013 with regard to the alleged irregularities conducted by him while working in the Borrowing Department. The petitioner replied the same vide his reply dated 10.01.2013. Vide Memo Dated 19.12.2013, Petitioner was called for in the hearing of Departmental Enquiry on 23.01.2014 by the Enquiry Officer who is Respondent No 2. In retaliation to the Memo dated 19.12.2013, Petitioner’s Counsel served upon the Respondent No. 2 a Legal Notice Dated 04.01.2014. On 21.04.2014, the Petitioner with an ultimate hope communicated his precarious condition to the Respondent. No 2 i.e., the Borrower Department in nexus to the Arbitrary and Capricious Action. Vide memo Dated 30.04.2014, Respondent No. 2 again called for the Petitioner to invariably present on the date of hearing. On 21.04.2014, the Petitioner with an ultimate hope communicated his precarious condition to the Respondent. No 2 i.e., the Borrower Department in nexus to the Arbitrary and Capricious Action. Vide memo Dated 30.04.2014, Respondent No. 2 again called for the Petitioner to invariably present on the date of hearing. In reciprocation of the same, the Petitioner replied to the Respondent No. 2 vide his correspondence dated 17.05.2014. Vide memo Dated 16.05.2014. Respondent No. 2 again called for the Petitioner to invariably present on the date of hearing. In reciprocation of the same, Petitioner replied to the Respondent No. 2 Vide his correspondence Dated 28.05.2014. On 06.06.2014, Respondent No. 2 again called for the Petitioner for appearance in the hearing of Departmental Enquiry. On 10.06.2014, Respondent No. 2 communicated a missive to the Respondent No. 1. Vide Legal Notice Dated 19.06.2014, Respondent No. 2 was categorically informed that “Finance & Account Department is the Parent Department of the My Client and for this very reason Panchyat and Gramin Vikash Department has no authority to initiate any Disciplinary Action against My Client. Vide Memo Dated 01/07/2014, Respondent No. 2 sought direction from the Respondent No. 1. Vide Memo Dated 25/02/2015, Respondent No. 2 again called for the Petitioner to invariably present on the date of hearing on 09/03/2015. In reciprocation of the same, Petitioner categorically apprised the Respondent No. 2 in nexus to the Provision of Rule 14(20) of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules 1966. Vide Memo Dated 31/03/2015, Respondent No. 2 again called for the Petitioner for recording plea on 06.04.2015. In retaliation of the same, Petitioner replied to the Respondent No. 2 Vide his correspondence Dated 07/04/2015. On 09/07/2015, Respondent No. 1 issued Impugned Show Cause Notice against the Proposed Punishment of Withholding of One increment with non-cumulative effect under the deleted provision of Rule 15(4) of the C.G Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules 1966. Vide reply Dated 20.07.2015, Petitioner pointed out the the provisions of the 42nd amendment, whereby the Rule 15(4) of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules 1966 has already been deleted, but no action was taken, against which the present writ petition has been preferred by the petitioner. 3. Vide reply Dated 20.07.2015, Petitioner pointed out the the provisions of the 42nd amendment, whereby the Rule 15(4) of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules 1966 has already been deleted, but no action was taken, against which the present writ petition has been preferred by the petitioner. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that impugned charge sheet issued by the borrowing department as well as the impugned proposed punishment of withholding of one increment without cumulative effect is illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the settled principles of law as well as without any authority and non-est in the eyes of law. The petitioner was already repatriated back to the Parent Department after conclusion of the period of deputation then the right to take and initiate departmental enquiry or action is not available to the Borrowing Department for the reason that under the Provisions of Rule 20 of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Classification Control & Appeal) Rules 1966 and Principles of law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Shiv Prasad Pandey Vs CBI and another, reported in AIR 2003 SC 1974 , on repatriation to the Parent Department, Finance Department had no authority to initiate Departmental Enquiry, as the Impugned Chargesheet and Show cause Notice against the proposed punishment as well were issued by the Respondent No. 1 who had no authority to do so. He further submits that the impugned order is also Ultra-vires, because the mpugned Show cause Notice against the proposed punishment was issued despite the fact that the provision of Second Show Cause Notice against the proposed punishment is not required under Rule 15(4) of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules 1966, as amended in view of the 42nd Amendment of the first proviso to Article 311(2) of the Constitution Of India. The Forty-Second Amendment has deleted the second stage of the inquiry which would commence with the service of a notice proposing one of the three punishment mentioned in Article 311(1) and the delinquent officer would represent against the same and on the basis of such representation and/or oral hearing granted, the disciplinary authority decides about the punishment. The Forty-Second Amendment has deleted the second stage of the inquiry which would commence with the service of a notice proposing one of the three punishment mentioned in Article 311(1) and the delinquent officer would represent against the same and on the basis of such representation and/or oral hearing granted, the disciplinary authority decides about the punishment. Deletion of this part from the concept of reasonable opportunity in Article 311(2) does not bring about any material change in regard to requiring the copy of the report to be provided to the delinquent.” Therefore, the impugned show cause notice as well as impugned order proposing punishment of withholding one increment without cumulative effect may kindly be set aside. Reliance has been placed on the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Shiv Parshad Pandey vs. CBI through Director, New Delhi, AIR 2003 SC 1974 and further the judgment rendered by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in the matter of B.L. Satyarthi vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, passed in W.A. No. 1058/2009 vide order dated 29.09.2014. 4. Learned State counsel opposes the submission made by the petitioner’s counsel and submits that the impugned charge sheet was issued to the petitioner on 10.12.2012, which has been challenged by the petitioner by way of instant writ petition, which was filed in the year 2016 itself i.e. after delay of more than three years and for which the petitioner has not given any explanation, as such the instant petition is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed at the threshold on this count alone. The petitioner is an employee of the Finance Department and he was sent on deputation to the Panchayat and Rural Development in the capacity of Assistant Accounts Officer vide order dated 20.06.2006 (Annexure P/2). From perusal of the aforesaid charge sheet (Annexure P/6) it would reveal that the petitioner was charge-sheeted due to his involvement and irregularities committed in the work of Pradhan Mantri Gram Sadak Yojna, Bilaspur. From perusal of the aforesaid charge sheet (Annexure P/6) it would reveal that the petitioner was charge-sheeted due to his involvement and irregularities committed in the work of Pradhan Mantri Gram Sadak Yojna, Bilaspur. The petitioner was repatriated in his parent department vide order dated 14.07.2012 (Annexure P/3) and thereafter the departmental enquiry against the petitioner was contemplated and vide letter dated 10.12.2012 (Annexure P/6), a charge sheet was issued to the petitioner, but the petitioner never challenged the aforesaid charge sheet at the relevant point of time and after lapse of more than three years the petitioner has challenged the aforesaid charge sheet, which is not tenable under the law. It is further submitted that looking to the aforesaid irregularities, a departmental enquiry has been contemplated against the present petitioner as per the provisions of Rule 14 of the Chhattisgarh Civil Service (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966 and under the said departmental enquiry proceeding, the aforesaid charge sheet was issued to the petitioner vide letter dated 10.12.2012. The petitioner was entrusted with the work of Divisional Accountant and as per clause 5.2.3 of the Accounts Manual of the Pradhan Mantri Gram Sadak Yojna the Divisional Accountant is expected to see that the rules and orders in force are observed in respect to all the transactions of the division which come within his sphere of duties, but the petitioner has acted illegally and he himself has committed irregularities. The Departmental Enquiry Officer completed its inquiry proceeding and submitted inquiry report on 29.05.2015, whereby the allegations leveled upon the petitioner have been proved, thereafter on the basis inquiry report dated 29.05.2015, the Deputy Secretary, Panchayat & Rural Development Department, Government of Chhattisgarh has issued show cause notice to the petitioner on 09.07.2015 vide Annexure P/23 to submit his version/reply within 15 days otherwise one sided action would be taken and in response to which the petitioner replied on 20.07.2015 (vide Annexure P/24). It is further submitted that since the petitioner belongs to Finance Department and the petitioner has committed above said irregularities while working in the Panchayat & Rural Department under deputation, therefore, the respondent department sought instruction from the Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission with regard to imposition of minor punishment upon the petitioner. The respondent department duly received permission with regard to imposition of minor punishment upon the petitioner from his parent department, i.e. Finance Department on 29.06.2016. The respondent department duly received permission with regard to imposition of minor punishment upon the petitioner from his parent department, i.e. Finance Department on 29.06.2016. The departmental enquiry proceeding was initiated against the petitioner. The aforesaid departmental enquiry proceeding has been initiated in accordance with the provisions of Rule 14 of the Chhattisgarh Civil Service (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966, in which the Inquiry Officer as well as Presenting Officer were duly appointed vide order dated 10.12.2012 (part of Annexure P/6 herein), therefore, the aforesaid departmental enquiry proceeding does not suffer from any illegality or infirmity. The parent Department of the petitioner i.e. Finance Department has also accorded its permission with regard to imposition of minor punishment upon the petitioner, therefore, in view of the same, the instant petition has no substance and is liable to be dismissed. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 6. It is an admitted position in this case that the petitioner was posted on deputation at Panchayat and Rural Development Department and was repatriated to his Parent Department on 14.07.2012 and after five months i.e. on 10.12.2012, charge-sheet was issued to the petitioner vide Annexure-P/6 and departmental enquiry was initiated against the petitioner and vide show cause notice dated 09.07.2015 (Annexure-P/23), minor punishment of imposing of one increment with cumulative effect was proposed against the petitioner. 7. The petitioner has filed the circular dated 03.06.1967 issued by the General Administration Department, Government of Madhya Pradesh pertaining to Madhya Pradesh Samanya Pustak Paripatra along with written submission, which provides as under: 8. Rule 20 of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966 provides as under: “20. Provisions regarding officers lent to the Union or any other State Government or any subordinate or local authority, etc. Rule 20 of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966 provides as under: “20. Provisions regarding officers lent to the Union or any other State Government or any subordinate or local authority, etc. (1) Where the services of a Government servant are lent by one department to another department or to the Union Government or to any other State Government or any authority subordinate thereto or to a local or other authority (hereinafter in this rule referred to as “the borrowing authority”) the borrowing authority shall have the powers of the appointing authority for the purpose of placing such Government servant under suspension and of the disciplinary authority for the purpose of conducting a disciplinary proceeding against him: Provided that the borrowing authority shall forthwith inform the authority which lend the services of the Government servant (hereinafter in this rule referred to as “the lending authority”) of the circumstances leading to the order of suspension of such Government servant or the commencement of the disciplinary proceeding as the case may be. (2) In the light of the findings in the disciplinary proceedings conducted against the Government servant: (i) if the borrowing authority is of a opinion that any of the penalties specified in clauses (i) to (iv) of Rule 10 should be imposed on the Government servant, it may, after consultation with the lending authority, make such orders on the case as it deems necessary: Provided that in the event of a difference of opinion between the borrowing authority and the lending authority, the services of the Government servant shall be replaced at the disposal of the lending authority: (ii) if the borrowing authority is of the opinion that a penalty specified in Rule 11 should be imposed on any member of class IV Government servant, it may impose such penalty without consulting the lending authority. (iii) if the borrowing authority is of the opinion that any of the penalties specified in clauses (v) to (ix) of Rule 10 should be imposed on the Government servant, it shall replace his services at the disposal of the lending authority and transmit to it the proceedings of the inquiry and thereupon the lending authority, may, if it is the disciplinary authority pass such orders thereon as it may deem necessary, or, if it is not the disciplinary authority submit the case to the disciplinary authority, which shall pass such orders on the case as it may deem necessary: Provided that before passing any such order the disciplinary authority shall comply with the provisions of sub-rules (3) and (4) of Rule 15. Explanation - The disciplinary authority may make an order under this clause on the record of the inquiry transmitted to it by the borrowing authority, or after holding such further inquiry as it may deem necessary, as far as may be, in accordance with Rule 14.” 9. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Shiv Parshad Pandey vs. CBI through Director, New Delhi, AIR 2003 SC 1974 , while observing the similar facts and circumstances of the case held in Para 25 as under: “25. For the reasons stated above, we are of the opinion that since the appellant had ceased to be an officer of the BSF on the date of his repatriation, he was no more subject to the BSF Act........” 10. The High Court of Madhya Pradesh in the matter of B.L. Satyarthi vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, passed in W.A. No. 1058/2009 vide order dated 29.09.2014 observed in Paras 9 and 12 as under: “9. Rule 20 of the M.P. Civil Services (CCA) Rules, 1966 contemplates a provision in the matter of taking disciplinary action against the officers of the State Government whose services are lent to the Union Government or any other subordinate or local authority. For the sake of convenience the provisions of sub rule 1 of Rule 20 is reproduced herein under: “20 Provisions regarding officers lent to the Union or any other State Government or any subordinate or local authority etc. For the sake of convenience the provisions of sub rule 1 of Rule 20 is reproduced herein under: “20 Provisions regarding officers lent to the Union or any other State Government or any subordinate or local authority etc. (1) Where the services of a Government servant are lent by one department to another department or to the Union Government or to any other State Government or any authority subordinate thereto or to a local or other authority (herein after in this rule referred to as “the borrowing authority”), the borrowing authority shall have the powers of the appointing authority for the purpose of placing such Government servant under suspension and of the disciplinary authority for the purpose of conducting a disciplinary proceeding against him: Provided that the borrowing authority shall forthwith inform the authority which lend the services of the Government servant (hereinafter in this rule referred to as “the lending authority”) of the circumstances leading to the order of suspension of such Government servant or the commencement of the disciplinary proceeding as the case may be (2) In the light of the findings in the disciplinary proceedings conducted against the Government servant: (i) If the borrowing authority is of a opinion that any of the penalties specified in clauses (i) to (iv) of rule 10 should be imposed on the Government servant, it may, after consultation with the lending authority, make such orders on the case as it deems necessary: Provided that in the event of a difference of opinion between the borrowing authority and the lending authority, the services of the Government servant shall be replaced at the disposal of the lending authority: ........................ (iii) If the borrowing authority is of the opinion that any of the penalties specified in clauses (v) to (ix) of rule 10 should be imposed on the Government servant, it shall replace his services at the disposal of the lending authority and transmit to it the proceedings of the Inquiry and thereupon the lending authority, may, if it is the disciplinary authority pass such orders thereon as it may deem necessary, or, if it is not the disciplinary authority submit the case to the disciplinary authority, which shall pass such orders on the case as it may deem necessary: Provided that before passing any such order the disciplinary authority shall comply with the provisions of sub-rules (3) and (4) of rule 15. 12. 12. Rule 20 of Madhya Pradesh Civil Services (CCA) Rules, 1966 as applicable to the State of Madhya Pradesh and reproduced herein above gives power to the borrowing department to take disciplinary action against a Government servant who is on deputation and the powers to the appointing authority and the disciplinary authority are conferred on the borrowing department. The Rule contemplates that the borrowing department shall have the powers of the Appointing Authority for the purpose of placing the government servant under suspension and for taking disciplinary action against him but the proviso contemplates that the action taken has to be forthwith communicated to the parent Department. When power is given to any authority to suspend a Government servant or initiate disciplinary action against him an assumption has to be drawn that the power can be exercised so long as the relationship of master and servant, employer and employee subsists or the contract of employment is in existence. Once the relationship of master and servant or employer and employee or the contract of service itself comes to an end, the question would be as to how disciplinary action or power to suspend can be exercised by an authority with whom the contract of employment of the employee concerned is no more in existence. Rule 20 therefore, has to be interpreted by holding that the power conferred under Rule 20 to the borrowing department or authority to suspend a Government servant or to take a disciplinary action against him can be exercised only if the relationship of master and servant or the contract of employment between the borrowing department and the deputationist employee subsists. When an employee who is a government servant and holds a lien in a Government department is sent on deputation to Foreign Department or a Corporation, then during the period of deputation a temporary contract of service is brought into force between the borrowing department and the employee concerned and so long as its contract of employment subsists the borrowing department can invoke the provision of Rule 20 but once the employee is repatriated back to the foreign department then the contract of employment temporarily created during the period of deputation ceases and if that be the position, then the borrowing department does not have any authority to take action against the employee concerned. Apart from the above a perusal of Rule 20(2) and the proviso to Rule 20(2) (i) and (iii) also clarifies the position. After the departmental proceeding initiated by the Borrowing Department is completed and the finding of enquiry is recorded, in the light of the finding if the Borrowing Department wants to impose any of the penalties specified in clause (i) to (iv) of Rule 10, then after consultation with the lending department the punishment can be imposed. However, the proviso to Rule 20(2)(i) indicates that if there is any difference of opinion between the Borrowing Department and lending department that the service of the employee has to be replaced at the disposal of the lending department. This clearly shows that action under these Rules can be taken only when the employee is on deputation not otherwise as the stipulation in proviso to Rule 20(2)(i) speaks about replacement of the employee to the lending department. Similarly in Rule 20(2)(i) and proviso thereto thereto also it is clearly provided that if the punishment to be imposed is a major punishment as provided in Rule 10 (v) to (ix), then the employee has to be replaced to the lending department and it is only the lending department which can take action. The stipulation in this part of the rule for replacement of the employee to the parent department clearly indicates the intention of the rule maker. In case Rule 20 was applicable to a employee who is already repatriated to the parent (lending) department then the provision for replacement of the employee to the lending department as contained in both the provisos to Rule 20 (2) (i) (iii) would not provide for replace the service of the government employee to the lending department. This in our considered view would be the interpretation which can be given to the powers that may be exercised by the borrowing department under Rule 20.” 11. In the case in hand, the petitioner was initially appointed as Assistant Treasury Officer in the District Treasury, Mahasamund vide order dated 07.02.2005. Subsequently, vide order dated 20.06.2006, the petitioner was sent on deputation in the Panchyat and Rural Development Department as Assistant Accounts Officer. In the case in hand, the petitioner was initially appointed as Assistant Treasury Officer in the District Treasury, Mahasamund vide order dated 07.02.2005. Subsequently, vide order dated 20.06.2006, the petitioner was sent on deputation in the Panchyat and Rural Development Department as Assistant Accounts Officer. Thereafter on 14.07.2012, the petitioner was repatriated back to his Parent Department (Finance Department) and after five months on 10.12.2012, charge-sheet was issued to the petitioner with regard to allegation of irregularities committed by the petitioner while working in the Borrowing Department and subsequently on 09.07.2015 as well vide Annexure-P/23 proposing minor punishment of imposing of one increment with cumulative effect, but the fact remains that when the first charge sheet was issued against the petitioner, he was already repatriated to his parent department and even the first charge sheet was issued after 5 months of his repatriation to his parent department and thereafter vide Annexure-P/23, minor punishment of imposing of one increment with cumulative effect was proposed against the petitioner. Vide order dated 04.08.2016, it was ordered by this Court that no coercive steps would be taken against the petitioner pursuant to the impugned orders/charge sheets, pursuant to which no action has been taken against the petitioner with regard to the impugned charge sheets. 12. In view of the foregoing discussions and considering the facts and circumstances of the case as well as the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court and the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, the present writ petition is allowed and the impugned charge sheets dated 10.12.2012 (Annexure-P/6) and 09.07.2015 (Annexure-P/23) are hereby quashed. However liberty is granted in favour of the respondent Borrowing Department to transmit the papers with regard to allegation against the petitioner to the Parent Department (Finance) and recommend for taking action in the matter and it would be for the Parent Department to take a decision in matter of proceeding departmentally against the petitioner, in case if they so desire. 13. The writ petition stands allowed to the extent indicated herein-above. No order as to cost.