9911796707
TMI Blog1992 (9) TMI 355X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ad not been served on the appellant, the proceeding got vitiated in law. Relying upon an earlier Full Bench decision of the Tribunal the plea was accepted and the application was allowed setting aside the penalty and directing reinstatement of the appellant with the observations that it would be open to the authorities concerned to take up the proceedings afresh, unless they chose to drop the same. It was also observed that a crimur 1 case which had been started against the appellant on the basis of the same charges had concluded in his acquittal and this fact also shall be kept in view while deciding whether the proceedings should be dropped or not, The Tribunal did not express its view on the merits of the case against the appellant. 4. The matter was considered by the respondent No. 2, who issued an order to the effect that the disciplinary proceeding shall be continued and that in view of Sub-rule (4) of Rule 10 of C.C.S. (C.C.A.) Rules, 1965 the appellant will be deemed to have been under suspension with effect from 4.2.1984, the date on which he was removed from service. This order was challenged by the appellant by a fresh application before the Tribunal, registered as OA ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... shall be deemed to have been placed under suspension by the Appointing Authority from the date of the original order of dismissal, removal or compulsory retirement and shall continue to remain under suspension until further orders: Provided that no such further inquiry shall be ordered unless it is intended to meet a situation where the Court has passed an order purely on technical grounds without going into the merits of the case. 7. It has been contended on behalf of the appellant that while in a case governed by Sub-rule (3), a Government servant, on the order of his punishment by way of dismissal, removal or compulsory retirement from service being set aside, stands suspended only if he had been under suspension earlier, Sub-rule (4) provides for automatic suspension of a Government servant, even if he was never under suspension at any point of time; and this invidious distinction amounts to illegal discrimination which renders Sub-rule (4) unconstitutional. The argument is that with a view to save the sub-rule, its application has to be limited to cases in which the Government servant has been, during the pendency of the disciplinary proceeding, under suspension. The le ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t aside, the order of his suspension shall be deemed to have continued in force but in Sub-rule (4) it has been said that the Government servant shall be deemed to have been placed under suspension . The departure made by the author in the language of Sub-rule (4) from that of Sub-rule (3) is conscious and there is no scope for attributing the artificial and strained meaning thereto. In the circumstances it is not permissible to read down the provisions as suggested. We, therefore, hold that as a result of Sub-rule (4) a Government servant, though not earlier under suspension, shall also be deemed to have been placed under suspension by the Appointing Authority from the date of the original order of dismissal, provided of course, that the other conditions mentioned therein are satisfied. 10. The question which next arises for decision is whether as a result of the above interpretation, Sub-rule (4) has to be struck down on the ground of illegal discrimination. It is contended on behalf of the appellant that for the purpose of disciplinary proceedings, the cases governed by Sub-rules (3) and (4) cannot be divided into two separate classes and subjected to differential treatmen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ase. In cases governed by the C.C.S. (C.C.A.) Rules, a court of law does not proceed to examine the correctness of the findings of the disciplinary authority by a reconsideration of the evidence. Unless some error of law or of principle is discovered, a court of law does not ordinarily substitute its own views on the evidence. But the matter does not end there. The scope of the sub-rule, for the purpose of automatic suspension has been further limited by the proviso as mentioned earlier in paragraph 6, which reads as follows: Provided that no such further inquiry shall be ordered unless it is intended to meet a situation where the Court has passed an order purely on technical grounds without going into the merits of the case. The cases which attract Sub-rule (4), are thus those where the penalty imposed on the Government servant is set aside on technical grounds not touching the merits of the case. Since at one stage the disciplinary authority records a finding on the charges against the Government servant, which is not upset on merits, the situation is entirely different from that in the cases covered by Sub-rule (3). The classification is thus founded on an intelligible dif ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rlier, and, on that basis urged that the case is distinguishable. We do not find any merit in this suggestion. The decision upholding the validity of Sub-rule (4) was not based on this fact and was arrived at unconditionally and covers the present case against the applicant. Finally, the learned Counsel for the appellant contended that Khem Chand's judgment was, in any event, erroneous and, therefore, fit to be re-examined by a larger Bench. We have examined the matter deeply and for the reasons indicated by us in paragraph 10 above, we do not find any justification for holding that Khem Chand's case requires reconsideration. 13. The case of Divisional Personnel Officer, Western Railway, Kota v. Sunder Dass , is again of no help. The facts stated in the judgment leave no room for doubt that the question which has been agitated before us did not arise for consideration there, as the Government servant was actually under suspension earlier. Interpreting the relevant rules of Indian Railway Establishment Code the Supreme Court agreed with the Department and allowed the appeal against the Government servant. 14. So far the judgment of the Central Administrative Tribunal i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
