Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

1967 Supreme(SC) 363

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
J.C. SHAH, V. RAMASWAMI AND V. BHARGAVA, JJ.
Balvantrai Ratilal Patel, Appellant
Versus
State of Maharashtra, Respondent.
Civil Appeal No. 442 of 1965,
D/- 12-12-1967.
Advocates appeared
Mr. H. R. Gokhale, Senior Advocate (Mr. P. N. Duda, Advocate and Mr. J. B. Dadachanji, Advocate of M/s. J. B. Dadachanji and Co. with him), for Appellant; Mr. H. M. Seervai, Advocate General for the State of Maharashtra (M/s. R. Gopalakrishnan and R. N. Sachthey, Advocates with him), for Respondents.

Advocates:
H.M.SIRVAI, H.R.GOKHALE, J.B.DADACHAN, P.N.DUDA, R.GOPAL KRISHNAN, R.N.SACH

The Government has the power to suspend a public servant pending an inquiry into his alleged misconduct, and the public servant is entitled to a subsistence allowance during the period of suspension.

Headnote:
SUSPENSION - POWER OF GOVERNMENT - INTERIM SUSPENSION - PAYMENT DURING SUSPENSION - BOMBAY CIVIL SERVICE RULES, RULES 151 AND 152 - INTERPRETATION.
Fact of the Case:

The appellant, a member of the Bombay Medical Service, was suspended from duty on February 13, 1950, pending an inquiry into allegations of corruption. The suspension was upheld by the High Court, but the appellant was acquitted of the criminal charges in February 1952. He was reinstated in service in March 1952, but was dismissed in February 1960 after a departmental inquiry. The appellant filed a suit claiming full pay and allowances from the date of his suspension to the date of his dismissal.
Finding of the Court:

The Supreme Court held that the Government had the power to suspend the appellant pending an inquiry into his alleged misconduct. The Court also held that the order of suspension did not come to an end on the date of the appellant's acquittal in the criminal case, as the order of suspension stated that it was "pending further orders." The Court further held that the appellant was entitled to a subsistence allowance during the period of his suspension, as provided for in Rule 151 of the Bombay Civil Service Rules.
Issues: 1. Whether the Government had the power to suspend the appellant pending an inquiry into his alleged misconduct? 2. Whether the order of suspension came to an end on the date of the appellant's acquittal in the criminal case? 3. Whether the appellant was entitled to full pay and allowances from the date of his suspension to the date of his dismissal?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The power to suspend an employee pending an inquiry into his misconduct is not an implied term in an ordinary contract between master and servant, but can be granted by statute or an express term in the contract. 2. An order of interim suspension can be passed against an employee while an inquiry is pending into his conduct even though there is no such term in the contract of appointment or in the rules, but in such a case the employee would be entitled to his remuneration for the period of suspension if there is no statute or rule under which it could be withheld. 3. The Bombay Civil Service Rules, Rules 151 and 152, provide for the payment of a subsistence allowance to a Government servant under suspension, and the amount of the allowance is to be determined by the suspending authority.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed.

Judgement

RAMASWAMI, J.:- This appeal is brought, by certificate, from the judgment of the Bombay High Court dated August 10, l961 by which the appeal of the respondent against the judgment of S. M. Shah, J. of that High Court was allowed and the suit of the appellant was dismissed.

2. The appellant was a member of the Bombay Medical Service. Class II and as such was an employee of the State of Maharashtra. In 1943, the appellant was posted at the Civil Hospital, Ahmedabad and on February 18, 1950 he was in-charge of the Medico-Legal Section of that hospital. On January 19, 1950, one Nabimahomed complained to Mr. Rathod, Sub-Inspector of Police, Anti-Corruption Branch, Ahmedabad, that the appellant had demanded Rs. 50 over and above his fees for issuing a certificate to him in order to enable him to claim compensation under the Workmen s Compensation Act. On January 20, 1950, a trap was arranged and it is alleged that the appellant received Rs. 55 from Nabimahomed Rs .5 as fees and Rs 50 as illegal gratification. The Sub-Inspector, Mr. Rathod then submitted a report to the Additional Assistant to the Inspector-General of Police, Anti-Corruption Branch setting out the facts leading to the trap and the recovery of the marked currency notes. The Additional Assistant to the Inspector-General of Police forwarded the report to the Surgeon-General who was the administrative head of the Medical Department with the request that the appellant should be placed under suspension from duty with immediate effect pending disposal of the case of corruption against him. On January 24, 1950, the appellant also addressed a representation to the Surgeon-General alleging that he had been falsely implicated by the Anti-Corruption Branch of the Police and asking him to consider the representation before giving his sanction for prosecution of the appellant and before making an order of suspension. The surgeon-General forwarded the report of Sub-Inspector, Mr. Rathod as well as the representation of the appellant to the State Government by his letter dated February 1, 1950. He requested the Government that in the circumstances mentioned in the Sub-Inspector s report orders may be issued for placing the appellant under suspension. His recommendation was approved by the Minister for Health and by the Chief Minister. By a letter dated February 13, 1950, the Deputy Secretary to the Government informed the Surgeon-General that the appellant should be suspended with immediate effect pending further orders. The Surgeon General thereafter issued an order to the Civil Surgeon, Ahmedabad dated February 16, 1950 that the appellant should be placed under suspension pending further orders from the date of the receipt of the memorandum. In pursuance of the directions received by him from the Surgeon-General, the Civil Surgeon, Ahmedabad, issued the following office order and sent it to the appellant :

"Under orders from the Surgeon-General, with the Government of Bombay, conveyed in his Memorandum No. s. 97/189/A dated 16tb February, 1950, you are informed that you are suspended pending further orders with effect from the afternoon of 18th instant.

You should hand over your charge to Mr. S. S. Doctor. B. M. S. Class II at this hospital."

On August 21, 1950 the Government directed that the appellant should be allowed subsistence allowance at Rs. 153-5-0 per mensem from the date of his suspension February 19, 1950 to March 31, 1950, at Rs. l58-13-0 per mensem from April 1, 1950 to February 18, 1951 and at Rs. 119-2-0 per mensem from February 19, 1951 onwards. The Government also directed that the appellant should be paid in addition Rs. 35 per mensem as dearness allowance and Rs. 14 as house rent allowance during the entire period of suspension. On May 6, 1950 sanction was given for the prosecution of the appellant under Section I61, Indian Penal Code. On February 26, 1951 the appellant was convicted by the First Class City Magistrate at Ahmedabad and sentenced to one day

Click Here to Read the rest of this document