9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the suspension order dated February 13, 1950. 2. Entitlement to full pay during the period of suspension. 3. Applicability of Article 14 of the Schedule to the Indian Limitation Act. Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Legality of the Suspension Order Dated February 13, 1950: The primary issue was whether the Government had the power to suspend the appellant by its order dated February 13, 1950, pending an inquiry into his alleged misconduct. The appellant argued that the power to suspend is not an implied term in an ordinary contract between master and servant and must be explicitly provided either by statute or in the contract itself. The Court, however, rejected this argument, stating that the general law on suspension, as established in cases like The Management of Hotel Imperial, New Delhi v. Hotel Workers' Union, T. Cajee v. U. Jormanik Siem, and R. P. Kapur v. Union of India, confirms that the power to suspend can be derived from statutory rules governing employment. The Court examined Rules 151 and 152 of the Bombay Civil Service Rules, which provide for the suspension of government servants and the payments they are entitled to during such suspension. Rule 151 states that a government servant under suspension is entitled to a subsistence grant not exceeding one-fourth of their pay. The Court held that these rules apply to all kinds of suspension, whether as a penalty or as an interim measure pending an inquiry or criminal proceeding. Therefore, the order of suspension dated February 13, 1950, was legally valid. 2. Entitlement to Full Pay During the Period of Suspension: The appellant contended that his suspension should have ended on February 15, 1952, when he was acquitted by the High Court, and he should be entitled to full pay from that date until his dismissal on February 11, 1960. The Court rejected this argument, noting that the suspension order was issued "pending further orders," meaning it could only be terminated by another government order. The Court emphasized that until such an order was made, the appellant had no right to be reinstated. The Court also distinguished this case from Narayan Prasad Rewany v. State of Orissa, where the suspension order did not contain the phrase "pending further orders" and was governed by a different rule. 3. Applicability of Article 14 of the Schedule to the Indian Limitation Act: Although the Appellate Bench of the Bombay High Court held that the suit was barred under Article 14 of the Schedule to the Indian Limitation Act, the Supreme Court did not find it necessary to express an opinion on this issue. The Court stated that since the appellant's claim was devoid of merit, the question of limitation was irrelevant. Conclusion: The Supreme Court upheld the judgment of the Bombay High Court dated August 10, 1961, confirming that the suspension order was legally valid and that the appellant was not entitled to full pay during the suspension period. The appeal was dismissed, and no order as to costs was made.
|
