9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Interpretation and scope of Rule 10(4) of the Central Civil Services (Classification Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965. 2. Validity of the disciplinary proceeding continuation post-acquittal in a criminal case. 3. Constitutionality of Sub-rule (4) of Rule 10 in light of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. 4. Entitlement to salary for the period the appellant was allowed to join and discharge duties. Summary: 1. Interpretation and Scope of Rule 10(4): The main question in this appeal pertains to the interpretation and scope of Rule 10(4) of the Central Civil Services (Classification Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965, and its consequent validity. The appellant was removed from service following a disciplinary proceeding, which was later set aside by the Central Administrative Tribunal due to non-service of the inquiry report. The Tribunal allowed reinstatement but permitted the authorities to restart the proceedings. The respondent decided to continue the disciplinary proceeding and deemed the appellant under suspension from the date of removal, invoking Rule 10(4). 2. Continuation of Disciplinary Proceedings Post-Acquittal: The appellant challenged the continuation of the disciplinary proceeding on the grounds of his acquittal in a criminal case. The court held that the nature and scope of a criminal case differ significantly from a departmental disciplinary proceeding. An acquittal in a criminal case does not preclude the continuation of departmental proceedings, especially since the acts leading to the disciplinary action were not identical to those in the criminal case. 3. Constitutionality of Rule 10(4): The appellant argued that Sub-rule (4) of Rule 10 is ultra vires Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution due to its provision for automatic suspension, even if the government servant was not under suspension earlier. The court examined both Sub-rules (3) and (4) and concluded that the language of Sub-rule (4) is clear and unambiguous, thus not permitting any artificial rule of interpretation. The court held that the classification between Sub-rules (3) and (4) is based on an intelligible differentia with a rational relation to the object of the rules, thereby upholding the constitutionality of Rule 10(4). 4. Entitlement to Salary: The appellant claimed entitlement to salary for the period he was allowed to join and discharge duties (1.10.1988 to 22.2.1989). The court found this claim well-founded and directed the respondents to make necessary payments within two months, failing which the amount would carry interest at the rate of 12% per annum from 1st November 1992 until payment. Conclusion: The appeal was dismissed except for the relief granted regarding the salary payment, with no order as to costs.
|
