UNION OF INDIA versus RAJIV KUMAR

Citation: [2003] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 597 · Decided: 18-07-2003 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: DORAISWAMY RAJU · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

UNION OF INDIA 
A 
v. 
RAJIV KUMAR 
JULY 18, 2003 
[DORAISWAMY RAJU AND ARIJIT PASAYAT, JJ.] 
B 
Service Law: 
Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appealj Rules, 1965; 
Rules 10(2)(a), 10(3), 10(4) and 10(5)(a), (b), (c): Deemed suspension of C 
employee for custodial detention exceeding 48 hours-Release on bail-
Continuance of suspension until further orders-Challenge to-CAT directed 
authorities to pass speaking/reasoned order-A uthQrities issued order 
continuing the suspension-Challenge t<r-High Court held that provision of 
law could not be construed to mean that deemed suspension continues till D 
withdrawal of order of suspension-Deemed suspension and its continuance--
Scope and ambit of-Held: Order of suspension deemed to have passed by the 
operation of legal fictions has as much efficacy/force/operation as an actual 
order-Suspension continues to be operative and employee has no right to be 
reinstated in service until order is modified/revoked by the authorities-The 
order is not restricted to the period of actual detention only-Merely because E 
suspension is for a long period does' not invalidate the order. 
Interpretation of Statutes: 
'casus omiscus' and 'reading statutes/statutory provisions as a whole'-
Principles of construction-Discussed. 
F 
Legal Maxims: Maxim "quod semal au/ bis existit proetereunt 
legislature"-Meaning of 
Words and Phrases: 
'deemed suspension '-Meaning of 
Respondent-employee was arrested for having committed certain 
offence and detained in custody for a period exceeding 48 hours. Hence, 
suspended under Rule 10(2) of the Central Civil Services (Classification, 
G 
597 
H 
598 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2003) SUPP. I S.C.R. 
A Control and Appeal) Rules. Authorities had passed an order continuing his 
suspension until further orders. Respondent challenged the order before the 
Central Administration Tribunal. CAT directed concerned authorities to 
B 
dispose of the matter by a reasoned and speaking order. Authorities disposed 
of the matter, which was challenged by the respondent. High Court held that 
sub-rule (2) of Rule lO could not be construed to mean that the deemed 
suspension for custodial detention exceeding 48 hours would continue until 
withdrawn and that the suspension comes to an end by operation of law after 
release of the employee from detention. Hence the present appeals by the Union 
oflndia. 
C 
It was contended for the Union of India that if the interpretation of sub-
rule (2) of Rule I 0 of the Act as deduced by the High Court would he accepted, 
it would result in extension/enlargement of scope of Rule 10(2) and it would 
render Rule 5(a) purposeless. 
It was submitted by the respondents that the order of suspension passed 
D under Rule 10(2)(a) could not be extended beyond the period of detention of 
the employee under Rule 10(2), 10(3), 10(4) and 10(5)(a)of the Rules; and 
that an employee could not be placed under suspension for an indefinite period 
of time. 
Allowing the appeals, the Court 
E 
HELD: I.I. Rule 10(2) of the Central Civil Services (Classification, 
Control and Appeal) Rules is a deemed provision and creates a legal 
fiction. The provision shows that an actual order is not required to be 
passed but is deemed to have been passed by operation of the legal fiction. 
It has as much efficacy, force and operation as an order otherwise 
F specifically passed under other provisions. It does not speak of any period 
of its effectiveness. (606-B-C] 
1.2. The provision under Rule lO(S)(a) makes it crystal clear that the 
order continues to remain in force until it is modified or revoked by an 
G authority competent to do so while Rule 10(5)( c) empowers the competent 
authority t11 modify or revoke it. No exception is made relating to an order 
under Rules 10(2) and lO(S)(a). On the contrary, specifically it encompasses 
an order under Rule 10(2). lftheorderdeemed to have been made under Rule 
10(2) is to lose effectiveness automatically after the period of detention 
envisaged comes to an end, there would be no scope for the same being 
H modified. There was no need to makt' such provisions as are engrafted in Rule 
U.0.l. v. RAJ!V KUMAR 
599 
10(5)(a) and (c) of the Rules and instead an equally deeming provision to bring A 
an end to the duration of the deemed order would by itself suffice for the 
purpose. Thus, it is clear that the order of suspension does not lose its efficacy 
and is not automatically terminated the moment the 

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