STATE OF ORISSA AND ORS. versus BAIDHAR SAHU

Citation: [2000] 3 S.C.R. 911 · Decided: 02-05-2000 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: V.N. KHARE, S.N. PHUKAN · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

STATE OF ORISSAAND ORS. 
./A 
v. 
BAIDHAR SAHU 
MAY2, 2000 
[V.N. KHARE AND S.N. PHUKAN, JJ.] 
- ). 
Service Law: 
Orissa Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1962 : 
Rule 12-Power of Collector to suspend an employee in contemplation 
of disciplinary proceedings-Stipendiary Engineer appointed by State Govern-
ment and working in connection with affairs of community development-
Disciplinary proceedings against in contemplation-Order passed by District 
Collector suspending him-Orissa Administrative Tribunal holding that 
Collector had no such power-Held, Collector was empowered by Governor 
to suspend a Government servant working in connection with affairs of 
community development-Said power continued to be exercisable by Collector 
even after delegation of power on him to impose minor punishment. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 3015of1997. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 17.4.96 of the Orissa Administra-
tive Tribunal, Bhubaneshwar in O.A. No. 196 of 1996. 
Jana Kalyan Das for the Appellants. 
The following Order of the Cotµt was delivered : 
The short question that arises for consideration in this case is whether 
the Collector of a District has the power to suspend the Stipendiary Engineer 
appointed by the State Government and working in connection with the 
affairs of the community development. 
/ 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
The respondent is a Stipendiary Engineer and at the relevant time was 
posted at Daspantapur Block in the District of Koraput. Orissa. It appears that 
since disciplinary proceedings were in contemplation against the respondent 
H 
911 
912 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2000] 3 S.C.R. ' 
A 
and, therefore, the Collector of Koraput by an order dated 8th April, 1996 
suspended the respondent. The respondent challenged the aforesaid order of 
suspension before the Orissa Administrative Tribunal on the ground that the 
Collector had no authority to suspend him in contemplation of the departmen-
tal inquiry against him. The tribunal, on filing of the original application, 
B 
without issuing notice to the appellants, allowed the said application holding 
that the Collector had no power to suspend the respondent. It is against the 
saidjudgment the appellants are in appeal before us. 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
Despite service of notice, the respondent has not put in appearance in 
this case. We, therefore, proceed to decide the matter in his absence. 
Rule 12 of the Orissa Civil Services (Classification, Control and 
Appeal) Rules, 1962 provides that the appointing authority or any authority 
empowered by the Governor may place a government servant under suspen-
sion where a disciplinary proceeding agamst such a government servant is 
in contemplation or where a case against such a government servant in respect 
of any criminal offence is under investigation or trial. By an order dated 
6.2.87, the Governor of Orissa in exercise of power under sub-rule (1) of Rule 
12 of the Rules empowered the Collector of the district to suspend a 
government servant worlcing in connection with ihe affairs of the Community 
Development. Subsequently, the-governor has also empowered the Collector 
of the district to inflict minor punishment on the government servants working 
with the affairs of the community development. 
The tribunal was of the view that since the Collector is empowered to 
impose only minor punishments; the power of suspension could not be 
delegated to the Collector, as power of suspension is exercisable only in the 
case of major punishment. This view, according to us, is not legally correct. 
It was not disputed before the tribunal that, under Rule 12, the Governor is 
empowered to delegate the power of suspension on the Collector of the 
district. Merely because the Governor subsequently has empowered the 
Collector of the district to also inflict minor punishment, it does not mean 
that by such delegation the Governor is denuded of his power to delegate 
power of suspension on the Collector. Such a view of the tribunal is neither 
borne out from reading of Rule 12 nor on the interpretation of the order dated 
6th February, 1987. We are, therefore, of the view that once the Collector was 
empowered by the Governor to suspend a government servant working in 
-
STATE v. B. SAHU 
913 
connection with the affairs of the community development, the said power A 
continued to be exercisable by the Collector even after delegation of power 
on the Collector to impose minor punis

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