LexSTATE OF PUNJAB versus KHEMI RAM
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
JI) F .. :·G·· ... :· .- ., .~ ' STATE OF PUNJAB v. KHEMIRAM October 6, 1969 657 (J. M. SHELAT1 V. BHARGAVA, C. A. VAID!ALINGAM A1'D I. D. DuA, JJ.] Punjab Civil Serl'ices Ru/es, r .. 3. 26(d)-Ortler of suspension n·ht'ther e/]1.•ctive froni date of its issue or d~uc of receipt by concerned Gover111rrent ser\·cnt-V alidity o/ ·procc·edings ending in disniirsal when order of suspeu .. siou not re~eived by Government ser1.:arzt before age of superannuation, The services of the respondent \\"ho wa~ an Inspector Cooperative So~icties in the Punjab were lent to thl:i: Himachal Pradesh Government in the capacity of Assistant Registrar. His date. of superannuation \\.1lS Augus~ 4, 1958. On July 16, 1958 he was granted 19 days leave pre- ·parntory to retirement by the Himachal Pradesh Governn1ent. On July 25, 1958 the Government 'of Punjab asked the Himachal Pradesh Gov. crnment tb cancel the leavC granted to the respondent und to direct him to revert to the Punjab Government immediately. On July 31, the Pun· jab Government sent ~telegram tQ the respondent at his home addrl!ss as he had gone there imrnediate!y ~tfter grant of leave. The te1e[,f."an1 in. ionned him that he had been "Suspended from service with effect fn"ln1. Augu."t 2, 1958. On that very day a charge....sheet \Vas issued to him, by letter 1..b.1.c-d August 2, 1958 the Himachal· Pradesh Government informed the respondent that his leave was reduced by two days i.e. it v.:ould end on . .\ugust 2, 1958. All these. communicatioDs reached the respondent 3fter August 4, 1958. He "ttendcd the subsequent departmental enquiry_).l.Ildcr protest. After con1pleting formalities the Punjab Governmeflt-diSml.s"cd him from service.. Thereupon the respondent filed a \\-Tit petition in the High Court challenging his dismissal. It was urged that as he bad aln·b.dy r~tirc<l on August 4, 1958 the proceedings starting with the order cf sus· pension and ending with his ,dismiss:il were void and against the terms of r. 3.26(d) of the Punjab Civil Service Rules as they then stood. 'The sai!.1 rule provided that a Government servant under suspension for n1is- con<luct shall not be permitted to retire on his reaching the date of compul- sory retirement but should be retained in service until the e.-:quiry into the charge was completed and a final order passed passed thereon. The Single Judge allo\ve<l the respondent's petition. The Division Bench in 3ppt!al upheld the order of the Single Judge relying upon its earlier judg· nlcnt in Dr. Pratap Singh's cate \vhich had held that an order passed und~r r. 3.~6(d) tciok effect from the day it was served on the concerned Gov- .crn1ncn~ servant. The State appealed, HELD : The 'communication of an order such :i.s an order of suspen· idon is only necessary· because till the order is isshed and actually sent 0out to the person concerned the authority making such order would be ;n a posi6on to change its mind and modify it if it thouAht fit. Once such ar\ order is sent out it goes out of the control of such nn autbority, a.hd thcre'fore. there would be no chance whatsoever of its changing its mind or modifying it. Therefore nfter nn order is issued and sent out tb tbC· conccY.ned Government serva11;t, it must be held to have heen com~ niunicated to him no matter when he actually received it .. [665 B-C] 1 The vieW that it is only~ from the' date of the actual receipt by him :that the order becomes effective.could not be accepted for then it \Vould 658 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1970] 2 S.C.R. be possihic. for a Government seryant to effectively th\vart an order by avoiding receipt of it by one method or the other till after the date of his !"etiren1ent even th'Jugh such an order is passed and desoatchcd before such date. [665 D] Actual kno,vledge by the conce;rned Government servant of an o.rdcr \vherc it is one of dismissal may. perhaps be nccess:i.ry becauSe of the consequences \Vhich the decision in Anzar Singh's cose contemplates. But such consequences would not occur in· the case. of an officer who has pro- ceeded on leave and against whom an order of suspension is passed be- cause in his case there. is no question of his doipg any act or passing. an.: orJer a;id such act or order being challenged as invalid. 1[665 E-F] In this view it must be held in the present case, that the order of sus~ pzn~ion was vali<lly passed and was communicated to the respondent before
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.