9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Whether an order of suspension against a Government servant takes effect when it is made or when it is actually received by the servant. 2. Validity of disciplinary proceedings initiated after the retirement of the Government servant. 3. Interpretation and applicability of Rule 3.26(d) of the Punjab Civil Services Rules. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Whether an order of suspension against a Government servant takes effect when it is made or when it is actually received by the servant: The Supreme Court examined whether the suspension order issued by the Punjab Government on July 31, 1958, took effect immediately upon issuance or only upon the respondent's receipt. The Court held that the order of suspension was validly passed and communicated to the respondent before his retirement date of August 4, 1958. The Court emphasized that communication of the order means transmitting information, not necessarily its actual receipt by the concerned servant. The Court reasoned that if actual receipt were required, a government servant could thwart the order by avoiding its receipt. Therefore, the order was effective from July 31, 1958, when it was issued and sent out. 2. Validity of disciplinary proceedings initiated after the retirement of the Government servant: The respondent contended that the disciplinary proceedings were invalid as they commenced after his retirement on August 4, 1958. The Supreme Court clarified that disciplinary action must be initiated before the retirement date, as per Rule 3.26(d). The Court found that the Punjab Government had indeed initiated such action by issuing the suspension order on July 31, 1958, and thus retained the respondent in service until the enquiry was completed. Consequently, the subsequent disciplinary proceedings, including the enquiry and the dismissal order, were valid. 3. Interpretation and applicability of Rule 3.26(d) of the Punjab Civil Services Rules: Rule 3.26(d) stipulates that a government servant under suspension on a charge of misconduct should not be permitted to retire on reaching the date of compulsory retirement but should be retained in service until the enquiry is completed. The respondent argued that since he received the suspension order after his retirement date, the proceedings were in breach of this rule. The Supreme Court, however, interpreted the rule to mean that the order is effective once issued and sent out, not necessarily upon receipt. The Court referenced several cases, including Bachhittar Singh v. State of Punjab and State of Punjab v. Amar Singh Harika, to support its interpretation that communication of the order suffices for it to take effect. Conclusion: The Supreme Court allowed the State's appeal, setting aside the High Court's judgment, and remanded the case for the High Court to decide on the three remaining contentions raised by the respondent. The Court concluded that the suspension order was effective from the date it was issued and communicated, thus validating the disciplinary proceedings and the subsequent dismissal order. The costs of the appeal were to be considered as costs before the High Court.
|
