STATE OF M.P. versus SH. L.P. TIW ARI

Citation: [1994] 3 S.C.R. 921 · Decided: 05-05-1994 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY, N. VENKATACHALA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

STATE OF M.P. 
v. 
SH. L.P. TIW ARI 
MAY 5, 1994 
[K. RAMASWAMY AND N. VENKATACHALA, JJ.] 
Service Law: Madhya Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Control 
and Appeal) Rules, 1966 : Rule lf---Suspension-!nitiation of disciplinary 
proceedings within a period of 90 days from the date of suspension 
order-Non-service of charge-sheet within the period-Delinquent Official 
making himself scarce and evading service of charge sheet on him-Effect 
of-Held; It does not per se render the disciplinary proceedings illegal. 
Practice & Procedure : Interference with illegal orders-Any action 
A 
B 
c 
' 
taken in compliance of such orders or to avoid contempt proceedings-Not D 
a justification to refuse to inteifere. 
l 
The appellant contemplated disciplinary proceedings against the 
respondent, an Executive Engineer, and placed him under suspension by 
its orders dated 24.4.1990 which was served on him on 25.9.1990. Charge-
sheet was framed on 5.7.90 and was sought to be served on the respondent 
through the officers but he refused to accept the same on some pretext or 
the other. However, the chargewsheet was served on him only after the 
expiry of 90 days, which was the time-limit stipulated by Rule 9 of the 
Madhya. Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) 
Rules, 1966. 
E 
F 
Respondent challenged the order of suspension, before the Ad· 
ministrative Tribunal on the ground that the disciplinary proceedings 
were initiated after the expiry of 90 days and therefore the suspension 
order was void. The Tribunal accepted the plea of the Respondent and set G 
aside the order of suspension. Hence this appeal. 
The appellant-State contended that the Respondent made himself 
scarce and successfully evaded the receipt of the charge-sheet till the expiry 
of 90 days. 
H 
921 
922 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1994] 3 S.C.fl. 
A 
Allowing the appeal, this Court 
B 
HELD :1.1. What is emphasised in rule 9 of the M.P. Civil Services 
(Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966 is initiation of the 
proceedings within the period of 90 days, and not effecting the service of 
the articles of charge issued or caused to be issued when the government 
servant makes himself scarce. Non-service, therefore, per se does not 
render the initiation of the disciplinary proceedings against the delinquent 
officer illegal, after the expiry of 90 days. [928-D) 
1.2. The delinquent employee successfully evaded the receipt of 
C charge sheet within the period prescribed under the rule and then claimed 
that initiation of the proceedings or the order of suspension becomes 
illegal or non est since the proceedings were not taken against him within 
th period prescribed under the Rules. Allowing the deliliquent to put a 
premium on successful avoidance of receipt of charge sheet and plead to 
D his advantage, the making of service ineffectual, should never be conn· 
tenanced. Hence, there is no need to give satisfactory explanation for every 
day's delay in service of charge-sheet on the delinquent. The Tribunal bas 
committed manifest gravous error of law in allowing the petition of the 
Respondent. [928-E-F] 
E 
D.DA. v. P.C. Khurana, [1993) 3 SCC 196, relied on. 
F 
2. A premium cannot be allowed to be put on avoidance, and the 
directions of the Tribunal, which are found to be illegal, cannot be made 
the basis to allow the respondent to remain in service when the disciplinary 
authority had found that it was expedient to keep the respondent under 
suspension. Tht mere fai;l. that the respondent was reinstated to avoid 
contempt proceedings or due compliance of the impugned order, cannot 
be the reason nor a justification to refuse to interfere with the illegal order 
passed by the Tribunal. [928-H, 929-A) 
G 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 4421 of 
1994. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 27.8.92 of the Madhya Pradesh 
Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur in 0.A. No.1056 of 1992. 
H 
A.K. Singhvi and S.K. Agnihotri for the Appellant. 
' 
+-
STATEOFM.P. v. LP. TIWARI 
923 
Raju Ramachandran Amitabh Verma and Ashok Mathur for the A 
·'.><. 
Respondent. 
>. _, 
• 
' 
> 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
Delay condoned. Leave granted. 
The appellant had contemplated disciplinary proceedings against the 
respondent and considered it expedient to keep the respondent under 
suspension pending the said proceedings. By proceeding dated April 24, 
1990, the respondent was suspended and it was served on him on 2
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.