2003 (7) TMI 686 - SC - Indian Laws

Whether sub-Rule (2) of Rule 10 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 does not contain any provision wherefrom it can be deduced that the deemed suspension for custodial detention exceeding forty eight hours would continue until it is withdrawn?

Issues Involved:
1. Scope and ambit of Sub-Rule (2) of Rule 10 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965.
2. Interpretation of Rule 10(2) in relation to the period of deemed suspension.
3. Legal implications of continuous suspension beyond the period of detention.
4. Application of Rule 10(5)(a) and 10(5)(c) in the context of deemed suspension.
5. Judicial interpretation and legislative intent concerning statutory provisions.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Scope and Ambit of Sub-Rule (2) of Rule 10:
The primary issue in the appeals concerns the interpretation of Sub-Rule (2) of Rule 10 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965. The Delhi High Court held that Sub-Rule (2) does not imply that deemed suspension continues until withdrawn; rather, it ends by operation of law once the employee is released from detention. The Supreme Court examined whether the deemed suspension under this rule automatically terminates post-detention or continues until explicitly revoked.

2. Interpretation of Rule 10(2) in Relation to the Period of Deemed Suspension:
The respondent-employees were detained for over 48 hours, leading to their deemed suspension under Rule 10(2). The High Court ruled that such suspension ends upon release from detention. However, the Supreme Court noted that Rule 10(2) creates a legal fiction where an actual order is not necessary, and the suspension does not automatically terminate post-detention. The suspension continues until modified or revoked by competent authority as per Rule 10(5)(a) and 10(5)(c).

3. Legal Implications of Continuous Suspension Beyond the Period of Detention:
The Supreme Court emphasized that the order of suspension does not lose its efficacy after the detention period ends. It remains in force until modified or revoked under Rule 10(5)(c). The Court highlighted that the suspension's continuation is supported by Sub-Rule 5(a) and 5(c), which would be rendered meaningless if the suspension ended automatically post-detention. The Court referenced Balvantrai Ratilal Patel v. State of Maharashtra (AIR 1968 SC 800) to support this view.

4. Application of Rule 10(5)(a) and 10(5)(c) in the Context of Deemed Suspension:
The Court clarified that Rule 10(5)(a) ensures that an order of suspension continues until it is modified or revoked, encompassing orders under Rule 10(2). Rule 10(5)(c) empowers the competent authority to modify or revoke such orders. The Court rejected the High Court's interpretation that the suspension under Rule 10(2) ceases automatically post-detention, affirming that the legal fiction created by Rule 10(2) remains effective until explicitly altered.

5. Judicial Interpretation and Legislative Intent Concerning Statutory Provisions:
The Supreme Court underscored that courts cannot read into statutory provisions or rewrite them unless absolutely necessary. The language of Rule 10(2) is clear and unambiguous, and the Court cannot add or substitute words to alter its meaning. The Court cited various precedents, including Institute of Chartered Accountants of India v. M/s Price Waterhouse (AIR 1998 SC 74) and Union of India v. Filip Tiago De Gama (AIR 1990 SC 981), to reinforce that statutory interpretation should adhere to the plain language and legislative intent.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court concluded that the order of deemed suspension under Rule 10(2) does not automatically terminate upon the employee's release from detention. It continues until modified or revoked under Rule 10(5)(c). The Court quashed the Delhi High Court's orders, allowing the appeals and leaving the parties to bear their own costs. The Court noted that any disputes regarding fresh suspension orders should be adjudicated separately by the concerned courts or tribunals.

← Previous Next →