Mahender Singh v. Union Of India And Another, Supreme Court Of India, Judgment, Law, casemine.com

Factual and Procedural Background

The appellant, a Cash Clerk with the Delhi Milk Scheme, was implicated in a criminal case involving the forgery of a cheque and was placed under suspension on 27 March 1976 under Rule 10(2) of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 (“CCS (CCA) Rules”). His services were later terminated on 10 January 1978 under Rule 5(1) of the Central Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965. After being acquitted in the criminal trial on 7 March 1980, he instituted a civil suit challenging his termination; the matter was transferred to the Central Administrative Tribunal, New Delhi.

By judgment dated 5 September 1988, the Tribunal quashed the termination, revived the earlier suspension, and permitted the disciplinary authority to decide whether to continue the suspension and to initiate disciplinary proceedings. Acting on this judgment, the disciplinary authority on 10 November 1988:

Set aside the termination order;

Decided to hold an enquiry on allegations of misappropriation of government money; and

Directed that the appellant “shall be deemed to have been placed under suspension w.e.f. 10 January 1978” by invoking Rule 10(4) of the CCS (CCA) Rules.

An enquiry was conducted, culminating in the appellant’s dismissal on 1 December 1989 (now separately challenged before the Tribunal). The present appeal before the Supreme Court concerns the validity of the retrospective suspension order dated 10 November 1988.

Legal Issues Presented

Whether Rule 10(4) of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 can be invoked to deem the appellant under suspension retroactively from 10 January 1978 when his earlier termination was a simpliciter discharge and not a penalty.

Whether the disciplinary authority’s decision to conduct an enquiry after the Tribunal’s judgment qualifies as a “further inquiry” under Rule 10(4) when no prior disciplinary enquiry had ever been held.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Supreme Court analyzed the text and pre-conditions of Rule 10(4). The Rule applies only when:

a penalty of dismissal, removal, or compulsory retirement has been imposed;

that penalty is set aside or rendered void by a court of law; and

the disciplinary authority decides to hold a further inquiry on the same allegations.

The Court found these conditions unmet for two reasons:

The original termination dated 10 January 1978 was a “simpliciter termination” under the Temporary Service Rules, not a penalty of dismissal, removal, or compulsory retirement. Although the Tribunal held that the termination was punitive in effect, the management had in fact treated it as a non-penal discharge; hence Rule 10(4) could not be triggered.

The concept of a “further inquiry” presupposes an earlier disciplinary enquiry, which had never occurred. Consequently, the disciplinary authority’s 10 November 1988 direction did not qualify as a further inquiry within the meaning of Rule 10(4).

As the mandatory pre-conditions of Rule 10(4) were absent, the Court concluded that the order deeming the appellant under suspension from 10 January 1978 was ultra vires. Nonetheless, the suspension ordered on 10 November 1988 could validly operate prospectively.

Holding and Implications

Appeal Allowed; retrospective suspension quashed.

The Supreme Court set aside so much of the Tribunal’s and the disciplinary authority’s orders as placed the appellant under suspension retroactively from 10 January 1978. The suspension may stand only from 10 November 1988 forward. The appellant is entitled to reinstatement with full back wages up to 10 November 1988, and there is no order as to costs. The decision clarifies that Rule 10(4) cannot be used where the initial separation was a simpliciter termination rather than a penalty, and where no prior disciplinary enquiry existed; its impact is confined to the immediate parties without creating new precedent on other factual matrices.

Mahender Singh v. Union Of India And Another

K. Jagannatha Shetty, J.— This appeal is from an order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, New Delhi and concerns with the scope of Rule 10(4) of the Central Civil Services (CCA) Rules, 1965 (‘the Rules’).

2. The facts leading to the appeal are these:

The appellant was a cash clerk in the establishment of Delhi Milk Scheme, New Delhi. There was some criminal case connected with the forgery of a cheque in which the appellant was arrayed as an accused. Pending investigation of the criminal case, he was placed under suspension. The order of suspension was made on March 27, 1976 under Rule 10(2) of the Rules. On January 10, 1978 his services were terminated under Rule 5(1) of the Central Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965. On March 7, 1980 the appellant was acquitted in the criminal case. On January 5, 1981 the appellant filed a civil suit in the District Court, New Delhi, challenging the order of termination of his services. The suit was transferred to the Central Administrative Tribunal for disposal. The Tribunal has, by its judgment dated September 5, 1988 set aside the termination order with the following conditions:

“(i) The impugned order of termination dated January 10, 1978 is quashed. Consequently, status quo ante as in regard to applicant being under suspension will continue from January 10, 1978.

(ii) It will be open to the competent authority to take a final decision on the continuance or otherwise of the suspension in the light of the judgment of Chief Judicial Magistrate dated March 7, 1980 in Case No. 57/2. It will be open to the competent authority to revoke the order of the suspension and reinstate the plaintiff into service as cash clerk. In that event, the pay and allowances of the plaintiff during the period of his actual suspension from March 27, 1976 to January 10, 1978 and deemed suspension thereafter shall be regulated in accordance with the provisions of F.R 54-B. Necessary adjustments, if any, should be made or in regard to the subsistence allowance already paid to him. The defendants shall also consider and decide whether the period of actual and deemed suspension shall be treated as a period spent on duty or not.

(iii) It will also be open to the competent authority, if so advised, to continue the plaintiff on suspension if it is decided to initiate disciplinary proceedings against him based on his conduct which led to his prosecution before the criminal court. The disciplinary proceedings if initiated should be completed within a period of six months from the date of communication of this order.

(iv) The competent authority shall take appropriate decision as regards (ii) and (iii) above within the period of two months from the date of communication of this order.”

3. Pursuant to the decision of the Tribunal the management made an order dated November 10, 1988 under Rule 10(4) of the Rules placing the petitioner under suspension w.e.f January 10, 1978. The appellant shall be deemed to have been suspended from the date of the original order of termination. The management also directed that there should be further enquiry against the appellant. The relevant portion of the order dated November 10, 1988 reads:

“And whereas the undersigned on a consideration of the circumstances of the case, has also decided that a further enquiry should be held under the provision of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 against the said Shri Mohinder Singh, ex-Cash Clerk on the allegation which led to his termination of service.

Now therefore the undersigned hereby:—

(i) sets aside the order of termination of services of Shri Mohinder Singh, ex-Cash Clerk

(ii) directs that further enquiry should be held under the provisions of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 against Shri Mohinder Singh on the allegations of misappropriation of government money which led to the termination of service.

(iii) directs that the said Shri Mohinder Singh, ex-Cash Clerk shall under sub-rule (4) of Rule 10 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 be deemed to have been placed under suspension w.e.f January 10, 1978 and shall continue to remain under suspension until further orders.

(Baldev Chand)

Disciplinary Authority

Dy. General Manager(A)”

4. After holding the enquiry the appellant was again dismissed from service. That order was made on December 1, 1989. It is said that the dismissal has been challenged by the appellant before the Tribunal.

5. From the above narration of facts it will be seen that the Tribunal while setting aside the termination order has directed that the appellant shall continue in suspension from January 10, 1978. The management while deciding to hold further enquiry has also directed that the appellant shall be deemed to have been placed under suspension w.e.f January 10, 1978. The management made this order under Rule 10(4) which reads as follows:

“10.(4) Where a penalty of dismissal, removal or compulsory retirement from service imposed upon a Government servant is set aside or declared or rendered void in consequence of or by a decision of a Court of Law and the disciplinary authority, on a consideration of the circumstances of the case, decides to hold a further inquiry against him on the allegations on which the penalty of dismissal, removal or compulsory retirement was originally imposed, the Government servant 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.”

6. There are three requirements for the application of Rule 10(4); (i) the government servant is dismissed, removed or compulsorily retired as a measure of penalty; (ii) the penalty of dismissal, removal or compulsory retirement is set aside or declared or rendered void by a decision of a court of law; (iii) the disciplinary authority, decides to hold a further inquiry against the government servant on the allegations on which the original order of penalty was imposed. If these three requirements are satisfied then the government servant shall be deemed to have been placed under suspension by the appointing authority from the date of original order of penalty of dismissal, removal or compulsory retirement and he shall continue to remain under suspension until further orders.

7. The order of the Tribunal and the management as to the retrospective suspension of the appellant cannot be sustained under Rule 10(4) of the Rules. It may be relevant to remember that the original order of termination was not passed against the appellant as a measure of punishment. It was a ‘simpliciter termination’ of the appellants' service under Rule 5(1) of the CCS (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965. The Tribunal has set aside that order on the ground that it amounts to punishment and the order of punishment could not have been made without holding an inquiry against the appellant. But that is not the same thing to state that the management made an order terminating the services of the appellant by way of penalty. The management treated the said order as a simpliciter discharge. Rule 10(4) therefore, has no application to the case of the appellant.

8. Secondly, it would be misnomer to call it a further inquiry as contemplated under Rule 10(4). There was no question of the management deciding to hold a further inquiry since there was no earlier inquiry against the appellant.

9. The power to place delinquent officer under suspension from the date of the original order of dismissal, removal or compulsory retirement from service would be available provided if the original order of dismissal, removal or compulsory retirement from service was made by way of penalty and that order has been set aside by a court of law. Since there was no inquiry leading to the removal of the appellant in the first instance, the decision to hold fresh inquiry does not attract Rule 10(4). The retrospective suspension of the appellant is therefore, unjustified and without authority of law.

10. However, it may be stated that the order of suspension dated November 10, 1988 would operate prospectively and the appellant would be entitled to reinstatement with all back wages till that day since the original order of termination has been set aside by the Tribunal.

11. The appeal is accordingly allowed modifying the impugned order. In the circumstances of the case, however, we make no order as to costs.

Civil Appeal No. 1821 of 1991, decided on August 2, 1991

Mahender Singh v. Union Of India And Another

Factual and Procedural Background

Legal Issues Presented

Arguments of the Parties

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

Holding and Implications

Mahender Singh v. Union Of India And Another

Comments