KHEM CHAND versus UNION OF INDIA

Citation: [1963] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 229 · Decided: 25-09-1962 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: BHUVNESHWAR PRASAD SINHA · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

-
1 S.C.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
229 
KHEM CHAND 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA 
(B. P. SINHA, c. J., P. B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, K. N. 
WANCHOO, K. c. DAS GUP'l.'A ANDJ. c. SHAH, JJ.) 
Public Servants-Dismissal-Order set aside by Sup»eme 
Court-Fresh enquiry on same charges-Snsperu;ion-Rule provid-
ing that public servant shall be deemed w be under snspenBion 
from date of original order of suspension-Validity of-Central 
Civil Services (ClflSs(~cation, Control and Appeal) Rules, .1957, 
r. 12(4)-Caru;titution of Ind,ia, Arts. 14, 19(1) (f), 31 (1), 
142, 144, 
The appellant a public servant was served with a charge 
sheet and after enquiry was dismissed. He filed a suit for a 
declaration that the order of dismissal was invalid and for a 
further declaration that he still continued to be in service. The 
suit was ultimately decreed by the Supreme Court by making 
the declarations sought. 
In the meanthne, the appellant filed 
another suit for recovery of arrears of salary and allowances. 
The suit was stayed pending the disposal of the appeal before 
the Supreme Court. After the judgment of the Supreme Court, 
the authorities decided to hold a further enquiry against the 
appellant m1 the original allegations, In view of L 
12(4) 
Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) 
Rules, 1957, the trial court ordered that the proceedings· shall 
remain stayed till the order of suspension was revoked or set 
aside, 
Rule 12(4) provides that where a penalty of dismissal, 
removal or compulsory retirement· is set aside by a court of la\v 
and the authorities decide to hold a further enquiry on the 
same allegations, the public servant shall be dcc1necl to have 
been placed under suspension from the date of the original 
order of dismissal, removal or compulsory 
retire1nent. 
The 
appellant contended that r. 12 (4) offended Arts, 14, 19 (1) 
(f), 31, 142 and 144of the Constitution and was void, 
Held, that r. 12(4) did not offend any of the Articles of 
the Constitution and was valid, 
Article 142 provides that decrees passed by the Supreme 
Court shall be enforceable throughout 1he territory of .India, 
and Art. 144 provides that all authorities, civil and judicial 
shall act in aid of the Supreme Court. Rule 12 (4) did not go 
against the decree of the Supreme Court and accordingly it did 
not contravene Arts. 142 and 144, 
The declaration by the 
1962 
1962 
?(°hem Chand 
v. 
Un ion of India 
230 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1963) SUPP. 
Supreme Court that the appellant was a member of the service 
at the date of the institution of the suit was not affected by the 
appellant being placed under suspension. 
The only things 
affected by r. 12(4) were the salary and allowal!ccs of the. appel-
lant as to which the Supren1e Court decree contained no 
directions. 
Rule 12(4) did not contravene Art. 19(1) (f). 
Conceding 
that the right to receive arrears of salary constituted the appel· 
!ant's property and that r. 12(+) placed substantial restrictions 
on the exercise of that right, the restrictions were in the interest 
of the general public. The taking of disciplinary action agai-
nst public servants for inefficiency, dishnt-(esty etc. was absolutely 
necessary in the interests of the general public. 
Suspension of 
the public servant pending enquiry was a necessary and reaso-
nable part of the procedure. 
Devendra Pratap v. State of U. P., [1962] Supp. I. S. C.R. 
315. 1334, distinguished. 
The argument that there was discrimination between a 
public servant the penalty of dismissal etc. on whom was set 
a:<ide by a court and another public servant a similar penalty on 
whom was set aside on appeal by the departmental disciplinary 
authority was incorrect. 
Rule 12(3) provided that in the latter 
case also the suspension of the public servant shall be deemed 
to have continued in force from the date of the original order 
of dismissal etc. Only in the case of a public se<vant who had 
not been placed under suspension pending enquiry, would 
r. 12 (3) not be operative. But such cases were rare. Rule 12(4) 
did not offend Art. 3 l (I) 
and 
whatever 
deprivation of 
property resulted from r. 12 (4) was by authority of law . 
. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal 
No. 124 of 1962. 
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and 
order dated November 14, 1960, of the Punjab High 
Court (Circuit Bench), Delhi in Civil Revision Case 
No. 22~-D of 195.9. 
Janarda.n i::Jharma., for the appellant. 
R. Ga.na.pathy Iyer and P. D. Me

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