STATE OF HARYANA versus HARI RAM YADAV AND ORS.

Citation: [1994] 1 S.C.R. 168 · Decided: 19-01-1994 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.M. AHMADI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
STATE OF HARYANA 
v. 
HARi RAM YADAV AND ORS. 
JANUARY 19, 1994 
B 
[AM. AHMADI, K. RAMASWAMY AND S.C. AGRAWAL, JJ.) 
All India Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules 1969: Rule 3: 
Suspension-Order passed without recital as to the satisfaction of 
C competent authority-Validity of 
Respondent-1, a member of the lnt11itn Forest Service belonging to 
Haryana State Cadre, was suspended during the pendency of «!_isciplinary 
proceedings initiated against him. He assailed the validity of the suspen-
sion order contending, inter-alia that it was passed without satisfying the 
D requirement of rule 3(1) of the All India Service (Discipline and Appeal) 
Rules, 1969. The Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench 
quashed the suspension order on the graund that it does not contain a 
recital to the effect that the Governor of Haryana was satisfied that it was 
either necessary or desirable to place the respondent. under suspension. 
E 
Against the order of Tribunal State preferred an appeal before this Court. 
Allowing the appeat.~setting aside the order of the Tribunal, this 
Court 
HELD : 1. The mere fact that the impugBed order of suspension does 
F 
not contain a recital that the Governor was satisfied that it is either 
necessary or desirable to place the respondent under suspension does not 
render the said order invalid. [173-D] 
2. In cases where the exercise of statutory power is subject to the 
G fulfilment of a condition then the ~cital about the said condition having 
been fulfilled in the order raises a presumption about the fulfilment of the 
said condition, and the burden is on th~,person who challenges the validity 
of the order to show that the said condition was not fulfilled. In a case, 
where the order does not contain a recital about the condition being 
/-
fulfilled, the burden to prove that the condition was fulfilled would be on 
H the authority passing the order if the validity of the order is challenged on 
168 
-
STATEOFHARYANA'v. H.R. YADAV[AGRAWAL,J.] 
169 
the ground that the said condition is not fulfilled. [173-E-F] 
The Swadeshi Cotton Mills Co. Ltd. v. The State of U.P. and Ors., 
[1962) 1 S.C.R. 422, referred to. 
3. In his petition before the tribunal the respondent has concentrated 
A 
his attack on the allegations levelled against him. There is no averment in B 
the said petition that the Governor of Haryana was not satisfied that it was 
either necessary or desirable to place the respondent under suspension .• In 
the absence of any such averment it must be held that the impugned order 
was passed after fulfilling the requirement of rule 3(1) in view of the 
presumption as to the regularity of official acts which would be applicable C 
and the absence of a recital in the order about the Governor being satisfied 
that it was either necessary or desirable to place the respondent under 
suspension is of no consequence. The tribunal was, therefore, in error in 
invalidating the impugned order of suspension. [174-G-H, 175-A-B] 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1247 of D 
1993. 
From. the Judgment and Order dated 12.10.1992 of the Central 
Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh in O.A. No. 1573/CH/91. 
Ms. Nisha Bagchi for Ms. Indu Malhotra for the Appellant. 
E 
P.P. Rao and R.K. Gupta for Manoj Swarup for the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
1. S.C. AGRAWAL, J. This appeal is directed against the order F 
dated October 12, 1992 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, 
Chandigarh Bench (hereinafter referred to as 'the tribunal'). The question 
that arises for consideration is whether the order dated November 25, 1991, 
whereby Hari Ram Yadav, respondent no.l, was placed under suspension 
during the pendency of disciplinary proceeding initiated against him, has G 
been passed in accordance with the provisions of rule 3(1) of the All India 
Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1969 (hereinafter referred to as 
'the Rules'). 
L. Respondent no.1 is a member of the Indian Forest Service and 
belongs to Haryana State cadre of the said service. Disciplinary proceed-
H 
170 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
{1994) 1 S.C.R. · 
A 
ings were initiated against him on the basis of charge-sheet dated April 29, 
1990. During the pendency of the said disciplinary proceedings another 
charge-sheet dated November 25, 1991 was issued. On the same day, i.e., 
November 25, 1991, an order was passed whereby respondent no.1 was 
placed under suspension. Respondent no.1

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