RUSHI GUMAN SINGH versus STATE OF ORISSA & ORS.

Citation: [2013] 4 S.C.R. 862 · Decided: 09-04-2013 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.S. NIJJAR · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
[2013) 4 S.C.R. 862 
RUSHI GUMAN SINGH 
v. 
STATE OF ORISSA & ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No. 2968 of 2013) 
APRIL 09, 2013 
[SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR AND M.Y. EQBAL, JJ.] 
SeNice Law: 
c 
Orissa Civil SeNices (CCA) Rules, 1962 - r.12(4) -
Suspension under - During further enquiry by Disciplinary 
Authority after direction of Court - Held: Though the delinquent 
officer was not under suspension at the time of the order of 
removal from seNice, he was rightly directed to be deemed 
0 
suspended u/s.12(4) from the date of the original order of 
removal. 
The appellant-officer was placed under suspension 
on 12 June, 1998 pending a disciplinary inquiry 
u/s.12(1 )(a) of Orissa Civil Services (CCA) Rules, 1962. 
E The suspension was later revoked during the inquiry 
itself i.e. on 20th July, 1999. Enquiry Officer exonerated 
the delinquent officer of all the charges. However, 
Disciplinary Authority passed punishment of removal 
from Service and directed that the period of suspension 
F would be treated as such. 
When the order was challenged, the Court directed 
the disciplinary authority to provide reasonable 
opportunity to the delinquent officer, before· taking final 
G decision. Thereafter, the disciplinary authority informed 
the delinquent officer that under the provisions of r.12(4) 
of OCS (CCA) Rules, 1962, he was placed under 
suspension from the date of the original order of removal 
from service and would continue to remain under 
H 
862 
RUSHI GUMAN SINGH v. STATE OF ORISSA & ORS. 863 
suspension until further orders. The challenge to the 
A 
suspension order was dismissed by the State Tribunal as 
well as the High Court. 
In appeal to this Court, the appellant contended that 
since the appellant was not under suspension at the time 
8 
when the order of his removal from service was passed, 
he could not be placed under deemed suspension by 
invoking r.12(4); that he could be placed under 
suspension under r.12(1 ); and that r.12(3) would come 
into operation, if the appellate authority sets aside a C 
penalty of removal and remits the case to the authority 
for further enquiry. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1. It is not correct to say that even though the 0 
order of removal was set aside by the High Court on the 
ground that the disciplinary authority had passed the 
order directing the removal of the appellant from 
Government service, in breach of rules of natural justice, 
it was necessary for the Government to pass an order of E 
suspension of the appellant under Rule 12(1) of OCS 
(CCA) Rules, 1962. The High Court directed the 
disciplinary authority to continue with the disciplinary 
proceedings after giving an opportunity of hearing to the 
appellant. Rule 12(1) enables the appointing authority or 
any authority to which it is subordinate to place a 
F 
Government servant under suspension where a 
disciplinary proceeding against him is contemplated or 
is pending. The aforesaid stage in the present case came 
to an end when the appellant was suspended for the first 
time on 12th June, 1998. Undoubtedly, the aforesaid G 
order of suspension was revoked on 20th July, 1999. 
Thereafter the appellant was removed from service on 
14th February, 2003 when the disciplinary authority 
disagreed with the findings of the enquiry officer 
exonerating the appellant. It was this order of removal 
H 
864 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2013] 4 S.C.R. 
A which has been set aside by the High Court. At that stage, 
a department had no option but to pass an order under 
Rule 12(4) directing that the appellant shall be deemed to 
have been suspended w.e.f. 14th February, 2003 i.e. the 
date of his removal from service. [Para 10] [868-F-H; 869-
8 
A-C] 
Khem Chand vs. Union of India and Ors. AIR 1963 SC 
687: 1963 Suppl. SCR 229 - relied on. 
H.L. Mehra vs. Union of India (1974) 4 SCC 396: 1975 
c (1) SCR 138 - referred to. 
2. Rule 12(4) cannot be read down to mean that the 
deemed suspension shall only be in case the employee 
was under the suspension at the time when the order of 
punishment was passed. Sub-rules (3) and (4) have been 
D correctly divided into two separate classes and 
subjected to differential treatment. Sub-rule (3) is 
applicable to these groups of cases, where the 
interference with the penalty is connected with the merits 
of the charge. The cases which attract sub-rule (4) are 
E those where the. penalty imposed on the government 
servant is set aside on technical grounds not touching 
the mer
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.