Judgment

DAS GUPTA, J. : This appeal by special leave raises the question of validity of r. 12 (4) of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1957 that were framed by the President and published by a notification dated February 28, 1957. Rule 12(4) is in these words:-

"12(4). Where a penalty of dismissal, removal or compulsory retirement from service imposed upon a Government servant is set aside or declared or rendered void in consequence of or by a decision of a Court of law and the disciplinary authority on a consideration of the circumstances of the case, decides to hold a further inquiry against him, on the allegations on which the penalty of dismissal, removal or compulsory retirement was originally imposed, the Government servant shall be deemed to have been placed under suspension by the Appointing Authority from the date of the original order of dismissal removal or compulsory retirement and shall continue to remain under suspension until further order."

2. The question arises in this way. On July 1, 1949, the appellant, who was a permanent Sub-Inspector of Co-operative Societies, Delhi, was suspended by the Deputy Commissioner, Delhi. On July 9, he was served with a charge-sheet under R. 6(1) of the Rules which had been framed by the Chief Commissioner, Delhi. On a consideration of the report made by the officers, who had held an enquiry into the several charges against him the Deputy Commissioner, Delhi, made an order on December 17, 1951 dismissing this appellant.

3. The appellant filed a suit on May 20, 1953, praying for a declaration that the order of dismissal made against him was invalid in law being in violation of Art. 311 of the Constitution of India and for a further declaration that he still continued to be in service of the Government.

4. The Trial Court decreed the suit on 31-5-54 declaring that the plaintiff s dismissal was void and inoperative and that the plaintiff continued to be in service of the State of Delhi at the date of the institution of the suit.

5. The appeal by the Government of India was dismissed by the Senior Subordinate Judge, Delhi on December 31, 1954.

6. The decree was however set aside by the Punjab High Court on November 1, 1955 in Second Appeal by the State and the suit was dismissed.

7. Against this decision of the High Court, the appellant preferred an appeal by special leave to this Court. This Court held that the provisions of Art. 311 (2) had not been fully complied with and the appellant had not had the benefit of all the constitutional protections and accordingly, his dismissal could not be supported. The Court then passed the following order :-

"We, therefore, accept this appeal and set aside the order of the Single Judge and decree the appellant s suit by making a declaration that the order of dismissal passed by he Deputy Commissioner on December 17, 1951 purporting to dismiss the appellant from service was inoperative and that the appellant was a member of the service at the date of the institution of the suit out of which this appeal has arisen. The appellant will get costs throughout in all courts. Under order XIV Rule 7 of the SC Rules, we direct that the appellant should be paid his fees which we assess at Rs. 250."

8. The judgment of this Court was delivered on December 13, 1957 and is reported in Khem Chand v. Union of India, 1958 SCR 1080.:

9. On April 20, 1955, i. e., shortly after the Government appeal had been dismissed by the Senior Subordinate Judge, the appellant instituted a suit in the Court of the Senior Sub-Judge, Delhi, out of which the present appeal has arisen. The defendants in this suit are: 1. The Union of India; 2. The State of Delhi: and 3. The Collector and Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Delhi. In this suit the plaintiff claims, on the basis of the decree obtained by him in the earlier suit, a sum of Rs: 14,042/8/- as arrears of salary and allowances. The hearing of the suit was however stayed by the Trial Court on Dece