NELSON MOTIS versus UNION OF INDIA AND ANR.

Citation: [1992] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 325 · Decided: 02-09-1992 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: L.M. SHARMA · Disposal: Dismissed

cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

NELSON MOTJS 
A 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. 
SEPTEMBER 2, 1992 
(LALIT MOHAN SHARMA, M.M. PUNCHHI AND 
B 
YOGESHWAR DAYAL, JJ.] 
Civil Services-Criminal case and depanmental disciplinary proceed-
ing-Distinction-Acquittal in criminal case whether conclude disciplinary 
proceeding. 
C 
Interpretation of Statutes-Construction-Words clear and free from 
vagueness-Artificial rule of lnterpretatiort-Not applicable. 
Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 
1965---fl.ule 10(4). 
D 
Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 
1965---fl.ule 10(3) and (4)-Language--Comparison of-Words clear and free 
from vagueness-Artificial rule of interpretatiort-Not applicable. 
Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 
1965---fl.ule 10(3) and (4)-0bject and applicability of-Whether Rule 10(4) 
unconstitutional-Automatic suspension in sub-rule (4)-Scope of-Held, 
employee entitled to salary for the period, allowed to discharge his duties. 
A disciplinary p.-oceedlng was initiated against the appellant - a 
Government servant - on the basis of several charges, and an inquiry was 
conducted. The Inquiry Officer submitted a report holding that the char-
ges were proved. Accepting the report, the disciplinary authority passed 
an order of removal of the appellant from service, which was confirmed in 
the departmental appeal. 
The appellant challenged the order of punishment by an application 
before the Central Administrative Tribunal. Before the Tribunal, it was 
contended that since a copy of the inquiry report was not served, the 
proceeding got vitiated In law. 
E 
F 
G 
The Tribunal allowed the application, setting aside the penalty and H 
325 
SUPREMI! COURT REl'Dll,TS(l99~] SUPP. 1 s.c.R,. 
A !llrected relnsta!e!11ent or !lie ap!'l'!lant, and observed that It would be 
ope11 to !lie &utliorltles concerped to tak!> Pp tlie procee!llngs 11fresli, 
m1Iess they chose to drop !he sa!De. It fll11her observed lh&t the fact of 
appel1&11t's &cqulltal In a crlmln&I cas• wblcb was stal1ed a1111h1st lilm oil 
the l»lsls or !be same charges, be abo kept In view, while decldlng wlletber 
B the proceedlngs be dropped or not. 
Respondent No.2, considered the matter, ordered continuance of the 
dlclpllnary proceedlng, and held that In view of sub-rule ( 4) of Rule 10 of 
C.C.S. (C.C.A) Rules, 1965 the appellant be deemed to have been under 
suspension with effect from 4.2.1984, the date on which be was removed 
C from service. 
The aforesaid order was challenged by the appellant by a fresh 
application before the Tribunal, contendlng that the order was bad, be· 
cause of appellant's acquittal In the criminal case, and that sub-rule ( 4) 
to Rule 10 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and 
D Appeal) Rules, 1965 was ultra vires Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution 
of Indla. 
The Tribunal dlsmissed the application as also an application for 
review. 
E 
The appellant appealed by special leave to this Conrt and contended 
that for the purpose of disciplinary proceedings, the cases governed by 
snb·rules (3) and (4) of Rule 10 cannot be dlvided Into two separate 
classes, and subjected to differential treatment; that the appellant who 
was not under suspension earlier, could not be treated to have been placed 
F 
under suspension, when bis petition was allowed by the Tribunal; and that 
sub-rule(4) of the Rule 10 was unconstitutional. 
Dismissing the appeal of the employee, this Court, 
HELD: 1.01. The nature and scope of a criminal case are very 
G different from those of a departmental dlsclpllnary proceeding and an 
order of acquittal, therefore, cannot conclude the departmental proceed· 
Ing. (330-E] 
1.02. In the Instant case, the acts which led to the initiation of the 
departmental disciplinary proceeding were not exactly the same which 
H were the subject matter of the criminal case. [330-E] 
NELSON MOTIS v. P.O.!. 
327 
im, !f !I!@ worc!s of a ~!!ll!!le are clear a!lc! free from allY vag11e11ess 
A 
a!!ll are, therefore, reasonably susceptible to o!llY one mean!llg, It must be 
~Ol!stnml giving ell\lct to tl!at meaning, Irrespective of consequences. 
[332·J>J 
2.02. The language of sub·rule (4) of Rule 10 of the Central Civil B 
Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 Is absolutely 
clear and does not permit any artlftclal rule of Interpretation to be ap· 
piled. It Is precise and unambiguous and, therefore, bas to be understood 
I

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