D. D. SURI versus A. K. BARREN & ORS.

Citation: [1976] 3 S.C.R. 350 · Decided: 06-02-1976 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: V.R. KRISHNA IYER · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
350 
D. D. SURI 
v. 
A. K. BARREN & ORS. 
February 6, 1976 
[V. R. KRISHNA IYER, A. C. GUPTA AND N. L. UNTWALIA, JJ.] 
Prerention of Corruption Act, 1947-Sec. 5(2)-All India Services (Disci· 
pline and Appeal) Rules 1955-Rule 7(3)-Suspension order without following 
ad1ninislrative instructions whether valid-Meaning of investigation-lnquiry 
and trial-Whetller suspension co1nes to an end on retiren1ent. 
The appellant was an erstwhile member of the Indian Administrative Service 
in the cadre of the· State of Orissa. 
At the relevant time in the year 1967, 
he \Vas serving as Commissioner of Land Reforms, Orissa. According to the 
appellant he had disputes, differences and animosity with respondent No. 1, 
the Chief Secretary to the Government of -Orissa and respondent No. 2 who 
was at . the relevant time Director of Vigilance and Additional Secretary to 
the Government of Orissa. The First Information Report was l~g1~d again~ t 
the appellant under s. 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1_947, on 
24·11-1967. The appellant's house was searched on 27·11-1967. An order_of 
suspension \Vas made against the appellant by the Government of Orissa 'on 
28-11-1967 under rule 7(3) of the All India Services (Discipline and Appeal) 
Rules, 1955. 
The Writ Petition file<l by the appellant against his order of 
suspension and investigation was dismissed by the High Court in lirnine. 
This 
Court allowed an appeal filed by special leave by the appellant against the 
High Court judgment and directed the High Court to admit and dispose of the 
petition in accordance with law. 
The State Government approached the Central Government to accord 
sanctiori for prosecution of the appellant. In spite of reminders, the Central 
Government neither accorded the sanction nor refused it. Appellant was compu '.-
s~1rily retired by the Gov~rnment in 1971. 
Thereafter, charge-sheet was sub-
mitted against him in the Court of the Special Judge, Sambalpur. The trial 
concluded but becaus~ of the stay order passed by this Court judgn1ent could 
not be delivered. Against the order of the compulsory retirement, the appe11ant 
filed a writ petition in the Delhi High Court which was dismissed by a learned 
single Judge and against which a Letters Patent appeal is pending. 'rhe Orissa 
High Court dismissed the writ petition of the appellant on the ground of it 
having become inftuctuous since the appellant was no longer in suspension since 
he \Vas compulsorily retired. The High Court also did not think it necessary 
to examine the legality of the investigation against the appeliant as charge-
sheet had already been submitted. 
· 
In an appeal by special leave the appellant contended : 
The suspension order may be quashed on the following grounds : 
(1) It was passed without follov;iing the various Governmental instruc-
tions on the point. 
(2) The order \Vas in violation of rule 7 (3). 
(3) The order was malafide. 
HELD : ( 1) It is true that all the instructions contained in the circulars 
issued by the Central Government do not seem to have been strictly followed. 
That would, however, not invalidate or nullify the order of suspension made 
under rule 7 (3). In dealing with the cases of high officers of the Administra-
tive Service care ought to have been taken to follow the instructions as far as 
possible. 
On the facts of the present case. however. failure to follow 
the 
instructions fully~ does not render the order of suspension per se invalid. [353GHl 
(2) Under rule 7 (3) a member of the Service in respect of or against whom 
an investigation, enquiry or trial relating to a criminal charge is pending, 
may at the discretion of the Government be placed under suspension. The 
t 
• 
( 
• 
• 
D. D. SURI v. A. K. BARREN (Untwalia, !.) 
35; 
expression in\'estigation. enquiry and trial are well known in the realn1 of the 
criminal J~w under the Criminal Procedure Code. 
In the present cas~, the 
r·irst Information Report was lodged and the search warra~ts were. issued 
before the sust'fension orders were passed. 
Most of the .allegations. against t~e 
appellant \\'ere in relation to his alle~ed acts of corruption. a~d misuse o[ his 
official position. 
Whether the allegations are true or false 1s irrelevant. Order 
under rule 7<)) was, therefore, legal and valid. 
[354A-E] 
A 
(3) The suspension order came to an end by the compulsory retirement of 
B 
the appellant. 
1\fter retirement from servic~ ~e could no longer be d
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.