DIVISIONAL PERSONNEL OFFICER, WESTERN RAILWAY, KOTA versus SUNDAR DASS

Citation: [1982] 1 S.C.R. 937 · Decided: 16-10-1981 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: Y.V. CHANDRACHUD · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

h..--..!,. 
• 
_, 
DIVISIONAL PERSONNEL OFFICER, WESTERN 
RAILWAY, KOTA 
v. 
SUNDAR DASS 
October 16, 198 I 
IY.V. CllANDRACHUD, C.J., A. VARADARAJAN AND 
AMARENDRA NATH SEN, JJ.] 
937 
Indian Railway Establishment Code, Rule 1706 (4)-Rai/way servant dismis-
sed after departmental enquiry-dismis1al order set aside by court-Fresh charge 
sheet issuPd-No fresh order of suspension however issued-Railway servant eventu-
ally dismissed-Railway servant-Whether deemed to have continued to be under 
suspension. 
Clause (1) of Rule 1706 of the Indian Railway Establishment Code provi-
des for a railway servant being placed under suspension where a disciplinary 
proceeding against him is contemplated or pending. 
Clause (4) of the same Rules provides that wr.ere a penalty of dismissal, 
removal or compulsory retirement from service imposed upon a railway servant 
is set aside by a decision of a Court of Law and the disciplinary authority deci-
des to hold a further enquiry, the railway servant shall be deemed to have been 
placed under suspension by the competent authority from the date of the original 
order of dismissal, removal or compulsory retirement. 
The Respondent was employed as an Assistant Sub Divisional Clerk in the 
North Western Railway. 
He wa'i 
discharged from service by an order 
dated 12.4.44. On the partition of India, he migrated to India and was taken as 
a clerk in the Western Railway. 
When the fact that the Respondent had already 
been discharged from Railway se1\.ke on 12.4.44 can1e to light, the Respondent 
was suspended from service on 17.2.49 and a charge sheet was issued to him for 
the misconduct of conceahncnt of lhe order of discharge, and after an enquiry he 
was dismissed from service on 14.5.59. The Respondent filed a suit for a decla· 
ration that the order of discharge was void. The High Court in Second Appeal 
held that the Respondent was entitled to a declaration that the order of his dis-
missal from service was illegal on the ground that there was a breach of 
the principles of natural justice and that it was open to the railway adminis-
tration to take fresh disciplinary proceedings from the stage at which the illega-
lity crept in. 
In pursuance to the order of the High Court the department issued a fresh 
charge sheet against hi111 on 14.1!.63 and held an inquirr. No fresh order of 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
938 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[ 1982] I S.C.R. 
suspension was however issued to the respondent. The respondent was even~ 
tually dismissed from service by an order dated 23.12.66 with efiect from 14.5.59, 
the date of his original dismissal. The respondent's writ petition challenging the 
order of dismi~sal was dismissed by the High Court. 
After the dismissal of the Second Appeal by the High Court, the Respondent 
moved the Payment of Wages Authority on 25.3.63 by a petition under section 
15 (2) of the Act claiming wages for the period from 17.2.49, the date of the 
original suspension, to 22.2.63 less subsistence allowance. He also filed (seven) 
petitions once in every six months claiming wages for the period from 1.3.63 
to 31.8.66. The Authority held that the Respondent was entitled to wages for 
the period from 17.2.49 to 14.5.49 but the District Judge in appeal held that 
the Respondent was entitled to wages for a period of six months prior to 25.6.63 
and also for the period of six months in respect of each one of the seven petitions 
filed by him. The High Court, howeveri dismissed the appellant's Civil Revi-
sion Petition and allowed the respondent's revision petition and held that the 
respondent was entitled to receive the arrears of wages from 17.2.49 to 31.8.66. 
In the appeal to this Court it was contended on behalf of the Appellant 
that the Respondent had been suspended from service on 17.2.49 before he was 
originally dismissed from service on 14.5.49 pursuant to the finding of guilt 
recorded in the departmental inquiry and that in the subsequent departmental 
inquiry he was found guilty and was therefore dismissed from service and by vir-
tue of the provisions of Rule 1706(4) he must be deemed to have been under sus-
pension right from 17.2.49 and he was only entitled to subsistence allowance and 
not to full wages for the period from 17.2.49. The Respondent, however, conten-
ded that the original order of dismissal dated 14.5.49 was based on the finding 
of guilt recorded in respect of a single charge and that as a second allegation 
had been mad
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.