Mutatis mutandis adoption of service rules does not transfer State revisional power over corporation disciplinary orders.

Adoption of U.P. Government Servants (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1999 by a corporation mutatis mutandis imports the procedure and safeguards of the Rules, but not the State authorities named in them unless the adopting instrument expressly so provides. The revisional power under Rule 13, which is framed for State Government servants and authorities subordinate to the State Government, could not automatically be exercised over corporation employees or corporation disciplinary orders. Any revisional authority must be a corresponding authority within the corporation. The State Government therefore lacked jurisdiction to entertain the revision, and the revisional order was without jurisdiction.

---

---

Issues: Whether the revisional power under Rule 13 of the U.P. Government Servants (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1999 could be exercised by the State Government in relation to disciplinary orders passed against employees of the Corporation after the Rules had been adopted mutatis mutandis by the Corporation.

Analysis: The governing principle was that adoption of service rules by a corporation imports the procedure and substantive safeguards of those rules, but not the original governmental authorities named in them, unless the adopting instrument expressly so provides. The expression mutatis mutandis requires necessary changes to suit the structure of the adopting organisation. Since Rule 13 confers revisional power on the State Government in respect of State Government servants and orders passed by authorities subordinate to it, that power could not automatically be exercised over corporation employees or over authorities of the Corporation merely because the disciplinary rules had been adopted. The relevant revisional authority, if any, had to be a corresponding authority within the Corporation.

Conclusion: The State Government had no jurisdiction to entertain and decide the revision under Rule 13 against the Corporation's disciplinary order, and the revisional order was without jurisdiction.

---