9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the suspension order dated 3rd January 1956. 2. Power of the government to suspend a civil servant with retrospective effect. 3. Impact of the Madhya Bharat High Court's decision on the applicant's duty status. 4. Inherent power of the government to suspend pending an enquiry. 5. Claim for arrears of salary during the suspension period. Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Validity of the Suspension Order Dated 3rd January 1956: The petitioner challenged the validity of the suspension order dated 3rd January 1956, arguing that the Madhya Bharat Government lacked the authority to suspend him retrospectively from 31st January 1954. The court held that on 3rd January 1956, the government could not make an order suspending the applicant with effect from 31st January 1954. The Madhya Bharat Civil Services Rules (Punishment and Appeal), 1950, only provided for suspension as a penalty and did not include provisions for suspension pending an enquiry until 31st October 1956. Therefore, the order dated 3rd January 1956, was declared invalid as it purported to place the applicant under suspension retrospectively. 2. Power of the Government to Suspend a Civil Servant with Retrospective Effect: The court examined whether the government had the power to suspend a civil servant retrospectively. It was concluded that the concept of "suspension" implies a temporary cessation of duties and cannot be applied retrospectively to a period during which the civil servant legally performed his duties. The inherent power claimed by the government must align with the ordinary connotation of the terms "suspension" and "suspend," which do not support retrospective application. 3. Impact of the Madhya Bharat High Court's Decision on the Applicant's Duty Status: The Madhya Bharat High Court's decision on 16th November 1955, which quashed the dismissal order, effectively restored the petitioner to his post and placed him on duty from the date of the original suspension order, 11th January 1954. This meant that the petitioner was regarded as on duty from the date of the suspension order until the decision of the High Court, and even after that date until 3rd January 1956. Therefore, the government could not treat him as under suspension for the period prior to 3rd January 1956. 4. Inherent Power of the Government to Suspend Pending an Enquiry: The court did not find it necessary to decide whether the government had inherent power to suspend the petitioner pending an enquiry in the absence of an express rule. However, it was noted that even if such power existed, it could not be exercised to make the suspension effective retrospectively. The court emphasized that the ordinary meaning of "suspension" does not support retrospective application. 5. Claim for Arrears of Salary During the Suspension Period: The court addressed the issue of whether the petitioner could claim arrears of salary for the suspension period. It was noted that the Supreme Court's decision in a similar case (AIR 1955 SC 600) indicated that an order of suspension lapses upon the issuance of an order of dismissal. When the dismissal order was quashed, the suspension order could not be revived. Therefore, the petitioner was regarded as on duty during the suspension period, and the government could not use the fact that the petitioner did not actually work during this period to justify the retrospective suspension. Conclusion: The petition was accepted, and the order dated 3rd January 1956, was quashed to the extent that it placed the applicant under suspension from 31st January 1954 to 3rd January 1956. The opponent state was restrained from giving effect to that order. The petitioner was awarded costs of the application, with counsel's fee fixed at Rs. 100.
|
