O.P. GUPTA versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

Citation: [1988] 1 S.C.R. 27 · Decided: 03-09-1987 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.P. SEN · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

' ) 
I 
.--{ 
O.P. GUPTA 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 
SEPTEMBER 3, 1987. 
[A.P. SEN AND B.C. RAY, JJ.] 
Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 
1965, Rule 12-Departmental proceedings against Civil Servant-Not 
to be protracted unnecessarily-Necessity for concluding with reason-
able diligence. 
A 
B 
c 
Civil Services: Fundamental Rules.-FRs 25 and 54: Civil 
Servant-Placed under suspension-Necessity for 
departmental 
proceedings being concluded within reasonable period-Crossing of 
efficiency bar-To be considered at appropriaie time-Rules of natural D 
justice applicable. 
Constitution of India, 1950: Article 309--Service rules have to be 
reasonable and fair and not grossly unjust. 
Words & Phrases: 'Ordinary'-Meaning of 
E 
Fundamental Rule 54 requires that when a Government servant 
who had been dismissed, removed or suspended is reinstated, the F 
authority competent to order reinstatement has to make a specific order 
(a) regarding the pay and allowances to be paid to the Government 
servant for the period of his absence from duty, and (b) directing 
whether or not the period of suspension shall be treated as a period 
spent on duty. Fundamental Rule 25 lays down that the increment next 
above the efficiency bar in a time scale shall not be given to a Govern· G 
ment servant without the specific sanction of the authority empowered 
to withhold increment under R.24. The Government of India, Ministry 
of Finance's decision dated September 21, 1967, as clarified by Ministry 
of Home Affairs, Department of Personnel & Administrative Reforms 
Memorandum dated April 6, 1979, stated that if after the conclusion of 
the disciplinary proceedings, the Government servant is completely 
H 
27 
28 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[ 1988] 1 S.C.R. 
A exonerated, he may he allowed to cross the efficiency bar with effect 
from the due date retrospectively, unless the competent authority 
decides otherwise. Rule 2.636 of the C.P.W.D. Manual, Vol.I, 1956 
edn., laid down that Divisional and Sub-Divisional Officers who fail to 
pass the departmental examination should not ordinarily be considered 
either for promotion or for crossing the efficiency bar. 
B 
The appellant, an Assistant Engineer in the Central Public Works 
Department was placed under suspension on September 3, 1959 pend· 
ing a departmental enquiry. That order was revoked by the Chief 
Engineer on May 8, 1970, and he was reinstated in service on May 25, 
1970 but the departmental proceedings were kept alive. Immediately 
C 
thereafter, the appellant made a representation to the department to 
pass an order under FR. 54 for payment of full pay and allowances for 
the period of suspension, which was rejected on the ground that the 
departmental enquiry was still pending. Thereafter, the appellant was 
compulsorily retired by an order of the Chief Engineer dated April 25, 
1972 under FR. 56(j). 
D 
In the writ petition filed by the appellant under Article 226 of the 
Constitution challenging the validity of the order of compulsory retire-
ment, and seeking directions in terms of FR 54 for payment of full pay 
and allowances for the period of suspension and also for payment of all 
increments to which he was entitled, a Single Judge of the High Court 
E found the order of compulsory retirement bad in law, quashed it, and 
held that the appellant shall be deemed to have continued in service till 
March 31, 1978, the date when he attained the normal age of superan· 
nuation. It was further held that the suspension of the appellant was not 
justified, and the period of suspension must be regarded as spent on 
duty and therefore the appellant under FR 54(2) was entitled to full pay 
f 
and allowances and the increments for that period, and that r.9(2)(b) of 
the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 was not attracted, and 
accordingly quashed the departmental proceedings. The Division Bench 
declined to interfere. 
Thereafter the Director General of Works on September 17, 1982 
G passed an order on the recommendation of the departmental promotion 
board declaring the appellant nnfit to cross the efficiency bar at the 
stage of Rs.590 in the grade Rs.350·900 with effect from October 5, 
1966. 
In the contempt proceedings taken by the appellant, the govern· 
H men! stated that there were two conditions for an Assistant Engineer to 
._.,,. 
.. 
O.P. GUPTA v. U.0.1. 
29 
efficiency bar namely, (i) that he should have passed the depart-
al examination

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