V. P. GINDRONIYA versus STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ORS.

Citation: [1970] 3 S.C.R. 448 · Decided: 29-01-1970 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M. HIDAYATULLAH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Cited by 4 judgment(s) · cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

448 
I 
V. P. GINDRONIYA 
v. 
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ORS. 
January 29, 1970 
(M. HIDAYATULLAH,, C.J., 
J. C. SHAH, 
K. S, HEGDE, 
A. N. GROVER, A. N. RAY AND J. D. DUA, JJ.) 
Public Servant-Ai/aster and Servant-Master's right to suspend ser-
•vant pending enquiry--No such right expressly provided in contract or 
-statutoril,v-Ef}ect of order of suspension. 
A 
B 
On May 7, 1964, the respondent-State ordered a departmental enquiry 
C 
against the appellant who was a temporary public servant in its service 
and placed him Under suspension pending the enquiry. On June 6, 1964 
·the appellant gave a notice to the respondent !resigning from service. On 
August I, 1964 the appellant was , asked to file a reply to the charges 
against him. 
The appellant tiled a writ petition in the High Court to 
-quash the proceedings on the ground that, as he was no longer in the 
respondent's service, the respondent 
could not 
take 
any departmental 
D 
action against him. 
·r;-ie petition was dismiS3ed. 
In appeal to this C'.ourt, 
HELD : (I) The general principle is that if the master bas a power 
to suspend his -.servant pending an enquiry into his misConduct, either 
in the contract of service -or in the statute or the rules framed thereunder 
_,governing the service, an order of suspemion passed by the master has 
E 
the effect. of temporarily suspending the relationship of master and servant 
with the consequence that the servant is not bound to render service and 
1he master iS' not bound to pay any wages during the period of suspenSiOn. 
Such a power to suspend the contract of service cannot be implied and 
therefore, if in the absence of such a power in the contract, statute or 
rules, an order of. suspension is passed by the master it only forbids the 
servant ·to work without affecting the relationship of master and servant, 
and the master will have to pay the servant's wages. [451 EJ 
F 
In the present case, the Madhya Pradesh Government Servants (Tem-
porary and quasi-Permanent Service) Rules, 1960, do not provide for 
suspension dufing the pendency of an enquiry. 
Therefore, the order of 
stispetision could not be considered as an order suspending the contract 
of service. 
It follows that when the appellant issued his notice on June 
6, 1964, the contract of service was in force and it was open to him to 
G 
put an end to it. [452. GJ 
(2) In his notice, the appellant unequivocally informed 
the respon-
dent that he has terminated his service with the respondent. 
He also 
intimated that any amounts due from him to the respondent under the 
provisos to r. 12(a) '!lay be deducted ,from the salary .due to him duri.ng 
the period of suspension. 
Therefore, the notice was tn accordance with 
the requirements of r. 12. It follows that ever since th.e ~espond~nt re~ 
H 
ceived the notice on June 9, 1964 the appe11ant was not in its service and 
therefore, it was not open to the respondent to take any disciplinary pro--
ceedings against him. 
[454 CJ 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
v. P. GINDRONIYA v. M. P. STATE (Hegde, J.) 
449 
The Management of Hotel Imperial, New Delhi and Ors. v. Hotef 
Workers' Union, [1960) I S.C.R. 476, T. Cajee v. U. Jormanik Siem and 
Anr., [1961] I S.C.R. 750, R. P. Kapur v. Union of India, [1964] 5 S.C.R. 
431and Balvantray Ratilal Patel v. State of Maharashtra, [1964] 2 S.C.R. 
577, followed. 
State of West Bengal v. Nipendra Nath Bagchi,. [1961] 1 S.C.R. 771 
and The State of Punjab v. Khemi Ram, Civil Appeal No. 1217 of 1966 
decided on 6-10-1969, expl•ined. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 990 of 
1967. 
Appeal from the judgment and order dated November 3, 1966-
of the Madhya Pradesh· High Court in Misc. Petition No. 514 of 
1964. 
G. L. Sanghi, P. N. Tiwari, J. B. Dadachanji, 0. C. Mathur 
and Ravinder Narain, for the appellant. 
I. N. Shroff, for the respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
Hegde, J. 
The appellant was a probationary Naib Tehsildar. 
He had been appointed tc:mporarily. 
While he was working at 
Bilaigarh in 1961, the Commissioner of Raipur Division directed 
an enquiry against him on as many as 13 charges. 
By his order 
dated August 3, 1961, the Commissioner placed him under suspen-
sion pending enquiry. Sometime later, the State Government 
taking the view that the enquiry ordered by the Commissioner may 
not be legal, revoked his orders viz. the order directing a depart-
mental enquiry against the appellant as well as the order placing 
him un
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.