LexRANJIT KUMAR MAJUMDAR versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
_, RANJIT KUMAR MAJUMDAR v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. NOVEMBER 28, 1995 [B.P. JEEVAN REDDY AND S.B. MAJMUDAR, JJ.] Service Law: Central Civil Services (Classification Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 : Rule 10(1). Suspension-Employee-Criminal prosecution-Suspension during pendency of prosecution under Rule 10(1}-Applicability of 1965 Rules to Defence employee holding civil post--,----Afatter refelTed to Constitution Bench. A B c D The appellant, holding a civil post connected with defence, was suspended from service under Rule 10(1) of the Central Civil Services (Classification Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 during the pendency of criminal prosecution. The validity of the suspension order was challenged before the Administrative Tribunal contending that in view of the decision of this Court in Union of India & Anr. v. KS. Subramanian, [1989) Supp. E 1 SCC 331 = AIR (1989) SC 362 the 1965 Rules were not applicable to civilian employee in defence services and, therefore, the suspension ef- fected under the said Rules was incompetent and without jurisdiction. Relying upon later decisions of this Court in Union of India v.Inderjit Datta, CA Nos. 5292-93 of 1993 decided on 6.9.1994 by Supreme Court, and Director General of Ordnance Services & Ors. v. P.N. Malhotra, J.T. (1995) F 2 SC 98. The Tribunal rejected the contention and held that (i) merely because Article 311(2) has no application to Civilian Employees in Defence Services, it cannot be said that the 1965 Rules have no application to them; G (ii) in view of the provisions contained in Rule 3, the said Rules were applicable to every government servant including civilian government servants in Defence service; (iii) the impugned order was not illegal inasmuch as the suspension in question was not pending any departmental inquiry but a criminal prosecution; and (iv) the employer has implied power to suspend his employee. H 717 718 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1995] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. A Against the decision of the Tribunal a petition was preferred before this Court. Giving reason for referring the matter to a larger Bench, this Court HELD : This is a matter which requires an authoritative pronoun- B cement by this Court. In view of the fact that the KS. Subramanian case was decided by a Bench of three Judges, it is appropriate that this matter be placed before a Bench of three Judges for hearing. It is for that Bench either to decide the matter themselves or to refer it to a larger Bench, if they think it appropriate. [720-H] c Union of India and Anr. v. KS. Subramanian, [1989) Suppl. 1 SCC 331 = AIR (1989) SC 362; Union of India v. Indeljit Datta, CA Nos. 5292- 93/93 decided by Supreme Court on 6.9.1994; Director General of Ordinance Se1Vices & Ors. v. P.N. Malhotra JT (1995) 2 SC 98; The Management Hotel Impe1ial, New Delhi and Ors. v. Hotel Workers' Union, AIR (1959) SC 942; D referred to. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 10901 of 1995. From the Judgment and Order dated 4-4-95 of the Central Ad- E ministrative Tribunal, Calcutta in O.A. No. 179 of 1995 F G H.K. Puri, Rajesh Srivastava and S.P. Lenka for the Petitioner. Altaf Ahmad, Additional Solicitor General and Ms. Anil Katiyar, for the Respondents. The following Order of the Court was delivered : This short order is to indicate the reasons for referring this matter to a larger Bench of three Judges. The petitioner is holding a civil post connected with defence. Pend- ing inquiry into certain grave charges in respect of which a criminal prosecution was launched, he was suspended on February 3, 1995. The suspension is ordered under Rule 10(1) of the Central Civil Services (Classification Control and Appeal Rules, 1965 (The Rules). On February H 9, 1995 the petitioner approached the Central Administrative Tribuna~ ,._ R.K. MATUMDAR v. U.0.1. 719 Calcutta Bench questioning the validity of the order of suspension on the A ground inter alia that the 1965 Rules do not apply to civilian employee in defence services and, therefore, the suspension effected under the said Rules is incompetent and without jurisdiction. The petitioner relied upon a decision of this Court in Union of India and Another v. KS. Subramanian, [1989] Supp. 1 SCC 331=AIR (1989) S.C. 362. The Tribunal, however, rejected the said contention relying upon the later decisions of this Court in Union of India v. Inderjit Datta, Civil Appeal Nos. 5292-93 o
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.