MAHENDER SINGH versus UNION OF INDIA AND ANR

Citation: [1991] 3 S.C.R. 330 · Decided: 02-08-1991 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. JAGANNATHA SHETTY · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
MAHENDER SINGH 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA AND ANR 
AUGUST 2, 1991 
• 
' 
B 
[K. JAGANNATHA SHETTY, V. RAMASWAMI AND 
YOGESHWAR DAYAL, JJ.] 
Service Law: Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and 
Appeal) Rules, 1965-Rule 10(4)-Scope of-Services of employee 
terminated by a simple termination order under Rule 5( 1) of the CCS 
c 
(Temporary Service) Rules, 1965-Termination order set aside by 
Tribunal-Retrospe.ctive suspensii>n from the date of original order of 
.-
termination-Whether justified, 
The appellant, a cash derk in the establishment of Delhi Milk 
Scheme, was placed under suspension under Rule 10(2) of the Central 
D 
Civil Service (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965, pending 
investigation into a criminal case, connected with the forgery of a 
cheque, in which he was arrayed as an accused. Subsequently, his 
services were terminated undeic Rule 5(1) of the Central Civil Services 
(Temporary Service) Rules, 1965. Though he was acquitted in the 
.. 
criminal case, he was not re-instated. However, the Central Adminis-
E 
trative Tribunal set aside the termination order and directed that the 
appellant would continue to be under suspension from the original date 
of' termination of service, and that it would be open to the competent 
authority, to revoke his suspension and re-instate him in service or 
continue him under suspension, if it decided to initiate disciplinary 
proceedings against him. 
• 
F 
Pursuant to the decision of the Tribunal, the Management passed 
an order under Rule 10(4) of the Rules placing the appellant under 
suspension from the date of original order of termination and also 
directed that there should be further enquiry against the appellant. 
G 
Allowing the appeal preferred by the appellant and modifying the 
Tribunal's order, 
HELD: 1.1 There are tb.ree requirements for the application of 
~ 
Rule 10(4) of the Ceritrai Civil Services (Classification, Control and 
Appeal) Rules, 1965. These are (i) the Government servant is dismissed, 
H 
removed or compulsorily retired as a me~sure of penalty; (ii) the said 
330 
MAHENDER SINGH v. U.0.1. 
331 
penalty is set aside or declared or rendered void by a decision of a Court 
of Law; and (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. [334F-G I 
1.2 In the instant case, the original order of termination was not 
passed against the appellant as a measure of punishment. It was a 
'simpliciter termination' 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 punishnlent and the order of punishment 
could not have been made without holding an inquiry. But that is not 
the same thing to state that the Management made an order terminating 
the services by way of penalty. It treated the said order as a simpliciter 
discharge. Hence Rule 10(4) has no application. Besides, there was 
no question of the Management deciding to hold a further inquiry, 
since there was no earlier inquiry against the appellant and it would 
be misnomer to call it a further enquiry as contemplated under Rule 
10( 4). [335B-C I 
1.3 Thus, the power to place a delinquent officer under suspen-
sion from the date of the original order of dismissal, removal or com-
pulsory retirement from service would be available provided the origi-
nal order was made b:' 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 
A 
B 
c 
D 
the appellant In the first instance, the decision to hold fresh inquiry does 
E 
not attract Rule 10(4). The retrospective suspension of the appellant is, 
therefore, unjustified and without authority of law. However the order 
of suspension would operate prospectively and the appellant would be 
entitled to re-instatement with all back wages till that day since the 
original order of termination has been set aside h) the Tribunal. The 
Tribunal's order is modified accordingly. [3350-G I 
F 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1821 
of 1991. 
·~ · 
From the Judgment and Order dated 17 4:1990 of the Central 
Administrative Tribunal. Delhi in R.A. No. 117/88 in T.A. No. 351 of 
1986. 
O.P. Saxena and fylukul Gupta for the Appellant. 
J.D. Jain, Kailash Vasudev, Ms. Sushma Suri and S.N. Terdal 
G 
for the Respondents. 
H 
332 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(1991] 3 S.

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