BALVANTRAY RATILAL PATEL versus THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Citation: [1968] 2 S.C.R. 577 · Decided: 12-12-1967 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: J.C. SHAH · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 3 judgment(s) · cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
BALVANTRAY RATILAL PATEL 
v. 
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA 
December 12, 1967 
[J.C. SHAH, V. RAMASWAMI AND V. BHARGAVA, JJ.] 
577 
Pow.er to suspend employee during enquiry-Scope of-Wh.'!ther !m-
p/uyee entitled to full remuneration during period of suspension or as 
determined under Rules 151 and 152, Chapter VIII, Bombay Civil Service 
Rules. 
The appellant was a member of the State Medical Service and as such . 
an employee of the responde'llt State. On a report made· in January 1950 
by the Anti-Corruption branch, sanction was given in May 1950 for his 
prosecution under s. 161 Indian Penal Code for accepting a bribe and 
the trial court convicted him of the offence in February 1951. In Febru-
ary' !950, he wits suspended by an order of the Chi! Surgeon pending fur• 
tber orders and in August 1950 directions were given about the payment 
of subsistence allowance, to the appellant during the period of his suspen-
sion·. 
Thereafter a revision application against his conviction was allowed 
by the High Court and a special leave petition to this Court was reject-
ed. In February 1953 the rospondent State Government directed that a 
departmental enquiry should be held against the appellant, as a result of 
which an order of dismissal was made against the appellant on February 
11, 1960. While the enquiry was going on the appellant gave notice to 
the resoondent under s. 80 of the Civil Procedure Code and then filed a 
s"Jit ag8.!nst the respondent praying for a declaraf on that the order of sus-
pensioo v1as illegal a!ld inoperative in law and the apPellant continued in 
service as thcugh no order for suspension had been made; he therefore 
claime<\ remuneration and allowances 
w:~h usual increments 
from tlte 
date of his suspension till the date of his re-instatement. A Single Bench 
of the High Court decreed the suit in the appellant's faYour but a Division 
Bench allowed an appeal and held that the respondent 
had 
inherent 
power :o suspend the appellant and to withhold full remuneration for the 
period of suspension undtr r. 151 of the Bombay Civil Service Rules. 
In the appeal to this Coun it was contended, inter a/ia, on behalf of 
the appellant (i) that the power to suspend is not an implied term in an 
ordinary contract between ffiaster and servant and that such a_ power can 
only be the creature either of a statute governing the contract, or of an 
express term in the contract itself; in the absence of any express provi .. 
•ion either in the contract of employment or in the Bombay Civil Service 
Rules, there was no power to suspend a public servant pending inquiry 
into the allegations of his misi:onduct; and (ii) as the appellant was sus-
pended pending an inquiry into the charge for the criminal offence alleged 
lo have been committed by him and as the proceedings in connectfon with 
thlit charge ended with the acquittal of the appellant by the High Court 
on February 15, 1952, the order of suspension must be deemed to have 
antomatically come to an end on that date and the appellant was entitled 
to full pav from then until February 11. 1960 when he wa5 ultimately 
dismissed. 
HELD : 
dism.issin~ the appeal : 
(i) The order of the State Government dated 
February 13, 
1950. 
suspending the appellant pending enquirv 
into his conduct 
was valid. 
[586 BJ 
. 
L2Sup.C.1/"' 8-6. 
578 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1968] 2s.c.R 
The general principle is that a employer can suspend an employee 
A 
pendrng an enqu.ry •mo his misconduct and the only questi0n that caa 
~ 
tn. such s~spcns1on v.·ilJ relate le;> payment during the period of such 
suspen~1on. It is .no"'· y,elJ-s·.!ttlcd that the power to suspend, in the sen&e 
of a ngbr 0:0 f\Jrb1d a servant to work, is not an implied term in an ordi-
nary contract bct~·.ccn master and servant, and that such a power can only 
be the. creature ettncr nt a statute governing the contract, or of an cxpre~ 
term ID . the contract it.self. 
Ordinarily, therefore, the absence of such 
Power either as an express term in the contract or in the rules framed 
B 
under some statute would mean that the master would have no pawer 
to suspend a workman and even if he does so in the sense that be forbids 
the employee to work, be will have to pay wages during the petiod of su•-
pension. 
Whc~e. however, there is power to suspend either in the contract 
of employment or in the statute or the. rules framed thereunder, the order 
of suspension has the effect of tempa

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.