UNION OF !NOIA versus S.P. SINGH

Citation: [2008] 7 S.C.R. 989 · Decided: 07-05-2008 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: TARUN CHATTERJEE · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

[2008] 7 S.C.R. 989 
UNION OF !NOIA 
A 
v. 
S.P. SINGH 
(Civil Appeal No. 3365 of 2008) 
.. 
MAY 7, 2008 
B 
[TARUN CHATTERJEE AND HARJIT SINGH BEDI, JJ.] 
Service law: Suspension order - Employee applied for 
voluntary retirement w. e. f 1. 9. 2005- On 9. 9. 2005, he received 
suspension order dated 30.8.2005 - This was dispatched to c 
Nagpur- Department was aware that he was residing in Delhi 
- Tribunal held that suspension order was dispatched to wrong 
address and was therefore not effective as it was received by 
him on 9.9.2005 whereas employee retired on 1.9.2005 -
... 
Correctness of - Held: Correct - Although suspension order D 
was dispatched by facsimile before 1. 9. 2005, yet it was 
dispatched to wrong address and hence not deemed to be 
communicated to employee - Central Civil Services (Pension) 
Rules, 1972 - r48(1)(a). 
Administrative law: Communication of an administrative E 
order - When effective - Held: Once an order is issued and it 
is sent out to the concerned Government servant, it must be 
held to be communicated to him, no matter when he actually 
received it. 
' 
Words and phrases: Communication - Meaning of. 
F 
The respondent posted as Commissioner (Appeals), 
Bhopal in May 2005, filed an application dated 10.5.2005 
seeking voluntary retirement w.e. f. 1.9.2005. On 30.6.2005, 
the respondent was relieved from Bhopal and posted as 
G 
Commissioner (Appeals) at Hyderabad. He accordingly 
handed over charge at Bhopal on 20.6.2005 but as the 
officer holding the post at Hyderabad had not been 
likewise relieved, the respondent's transfer order was 
989 
H 
A 
B 
c 
D 
990 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2008] 7 S.C.R. 
stayed and a request was made by him seeking a suitable 
posting pursuant to his request for voluntary retirement. 
The communication dated 25.8.2005 was sent to the 
respondent at his residential address at NOIDA, whereby 
he was asked to deposit some outstanding dues so that 
his request for retirement could be finalized. Quite to the 
contrary, however, on 9.9.2005, the respondent received 
an order dated 30.8.2005 placing him under suspension 
and fixing his Head Quarters at Aurangabad and by 
another order his request for voluntary retirement was 
also declined. An order dated 16.9.2005 was subsequently 
issued whereby he was directed to be attached to Bhopal 
for the purpose of receiving payment of his subsistence 
allowance. The orders dated 30.8.2005 and 16.9.2005 were 
challenged by the respondent before the Central 
Administrative Tribunal. 
The Tribunal observed that the order dated 30.8.2005 
had been dispatched to Nagpur for further transmission 
to the respondent at Hyderabad though he was 
admittedly at NOIDA at the relevant time, - a fact well within 
E the knowledge of the Department as he had not been able 
to take up his appointment at Hyderabad. The Tribunal 
accordingly concluded that the order had been 
dispatched to the wrong address and was therefore not 
effective as it had actually been received by him on 
9.9.2005 whereas the respondent had retired w.e.f. 
F 
1.9.2005. The Original Application was accordingly allowed 
by the Tribunal. High Court dismissed the writ petition. 
Hence the present appeal. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
G 
HELD: 1. The ordinary meaning of the word 
"communicate" is to impart, confer or transmit 
information. Once an order is issued and it is sent out to 
the concerned Government servant, it must be held to 
have been communicated to him, no matter when he 
H actually received it. The view that it is only from the date 
., 
" 
.. 
' 
• 
'f 
UNION OF !NOIA v. S.P. SINGH 
991 
of the actual receipt by him that the order becomes A 
effective cannot be accepted. If that be the true meaning 
of communication, it would be possible for a Government 
servant to effectively thwart an order by avoiding receipt 
,. 
of it by one method or the other till after the date of his 
retirement even though such an order is passed and B 
dispatched to him before such date. An officer against 
whom action is sought to be taken, thus, may go away 
from the address given by him for service of such orders 
or may deliberately give a wrong address and thus 
prevent or delay its receipt and be able to defeat its service c 
on him. Such a meaning of the word "communication" 
ought not to be given unless the provision in question 
expressly so provides. [Para 9] [996-F, 997-D,E,F,G] 
State of Punjab vs. Khemi Ram AIR 1970 SC 214 -
relied on. 
D 
Hari K

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