1. Government servant suspended pending disciplinary proceedings — Charge-sheet issued but service delayed due to employee's evasion — Suspension challenged under M.P. Civil Services (CCA) Rules, 1966. (Para 2 )
Back
Next 
1994 Supreme(SC) 523
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
K. RAMASWAMY AND N. VENKATACHALA, JJ.
State of M.P., Appellant
Versus
L. P. Tiwari, Respondent.
Civil Appeal No. 4421 of 1994 (arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 12601 of 1993),
D/-5-5-1994.
Advocates appeared
Mr. A. K. Singhvi and Mr. S. K. Agnihotri, Advocates, for Appellant. Mr. Raju Ramchandran, Mr. Amitabh Verma and Mr. Ashok Mathur, Advocates, for Respondent.
Important Points
The Court held that 'issued or caused to be issued' means the charge-sheet was dispatched within the prescribed period. A delinquent employee who evades service cannot claim the suspension is void, as transmission is sufficient compliance and service is not a condition precedent.
Subject
Administrative Law - Disciplinary Proceedings
Act Referred
Headnote
Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966 – Challenged - Order of Suspension - Appellant had contemplated disciplinary proceedings against respondent and considered it expedient to keep respondent under suspension pending - Respondent was suspended and it was served on him charge-sheet was framed against respondent and was sent to Engineer-in-Chief, at Bhopal for effecting its service who in his letter requested Chief Engineer (Central) at Jabalpur to serve charge-sheet on respondent - latter in turn endorsed it to depute his head clerk to serve charge-sheet on respondent, endorsement made by head clerk - Head Clerk had gone to Pahadukodi and Executive Engineer, and gave him the letters. But as informed by the Head Clark in writing that he refused to accept said letters on some pretext, same are being sent to you in original – Held, It could be seen that what is emphasised in the rule is initiation of the proceedings within the period of 90 days, and not effecting service of articles of charge issued or caused to be issued when the Government servant makes himself scarce. Non-service, therefore, per se does not render initiation of the disciplinary proceedings against delinquent officer illegal, after the expiry of 90 days. As pointed out by this Court and as found on the facts on hand that delinquent employee successfully evaded receipt of charge-sheet within the period prescribed under rule and then claimed that initiation of the proceedings or the order of suspension become illegal or non est since the proceedings were not taken against him within the period prescribed under R. 9 or similar rule - Appeal allowed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Advocates:
A.K.SINGH, AMITABH VERMA, ASHOK MATHUR, RAJU RAMACHANDRAN, S.K.AGNIHOTRI
A.K.SINGH, AMITABH VERMA, ASHOK MATHUR, RAJU RAMACHANDRAN, S.K.AGNIHOTRI
Table of Contents
2. Whether suspension becomes void if charge-sheet is not served within the statutory period when the delinquent employee intentionally evades receipt of the same. (Para 3 )
3. The phrase issued or caused to be issued implies putting the charge-sheet in transmission; service is not a condition precedent, especially where the employee evades receipt. (Para 4 , 5 )
4. Initiation of disciplinary proceedings is completed upon issuance and dispatch of the charge-sheet; intentional evasion of service by the delinquent does not render the proceedings illegal. (Para 4 , 5 )
5. Appeal allowed — Order of the Administrative Tribunal set aside — Order of suspension restored. (Para 6 )
6. Does the failure to effect service of a charge-sheet within the statutory period automatically revoke a suspension order?
No. If the disciplinary authority has issued and caused the charge-sheet to be issued (put in transmission) within the prescribed period, the suspension remains valid. Service is not a condition precedent, and a delinquent who evades receipt cannot take advantage of such evasion. (Para 4 , 5 )
7. What is the legal meaning of the term issued in the context of initiating disciplinary proceedings?
The term issued refers to the decision to initiate proceedings and the subsequent framing and dispatch of the charge-sheet. The actual service of the charge-sheet on the government servant is a consequence of this decision and not part of the decision-making process itself. (Para 5 )
8. Can a government servant claim that disciplinary proceedings are void if they successfully avoided receiving the charge-sheet within the limitation period?
No. A delinquent employee who thwarts attempts to serve the charge-sheet and makes himself scarce cannot be allowed to put a premium on successful avoidance to claim that the initiation of proceedings or the suspension order has become illegal or non est. (Para 3 , 5 )
JUDGMENT
Delay condoned. Leave granted.
2. The appellant had contemplated disciplinary proceedings against the respondent and considered it expedient to keep the respondent under suspension pending the said proceedings. By proceeding dated April 24, 1990, the respondent was suspended and it was served on him on 25-9-1990. A charge-sheet was framed against the respondent on July 5, 1990 and was sent to the Engineer-in-Chief, at Bhopal for effecting its service who in his letter dated November 8, 1990 requested the Chief Engineer (Central) at Jabalpur to serve the charge-sheet on the respondent. The latter in turn endorsed it to the Suptdg. Engineer, Panna who deputed his head clerk to serve the charge-sheet on the respondent. The endorsement made by the head clerk on December 21, 1990, reads thus:
"The Head Clerk had gone to Pahadukodi and met Shri Tiwari, Executive Engineer, and gave him the letters. But as informed by the Head Clark in writing that he refused to accept the said letters on some pretext, the same are being sent to you in original."
Thereafter, the service was effected after the expiry of 90 days. The respondent challenged the order of suspension in the Administrative Tribunal on the ground that the disciplinary proceedings were initiated after the expiry of 90 days and that, therefore, suspension was without jurisdiction and void. That plea was found favour with the Tribunal in O.A. No. 1056/92, which by its order dated August 27, 1992 set aside the order of suspension. Thus, this appeal by special leave.
3. The appellants contention is that the respondent having had knowledge of the order of suspension and initiation of the proceedings, made himself scarce and evaded the receipt of the charge-sheet and all attempts made by the appellants, within the period of limitation to serve the charge-sheet proved futile. Having successfully evaded the receipt of the charge-sheet till the expiry of 90 days, the respondent approached the Tribunal in 1992 and claimed that his suspension after the expiry of 90 days prescribed under R. 9 of the M.P. Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966, for short the rules had become illegal and void, and had stood revoked. We find force in the contention. It is seen from the letter addressed by the Chief Engineer, Jabalpur to the Govt. that the respondent, the Executive Engineer had not given the address nor reported to the office of the Superintending Engineer as per the directions issued by the Government and that his whereabouts were not known. It would thus be clear that after having had knowledge of the suspension order the respondent thwarted the attempt to serve the charge-sheet against him and thereby refused to receive it. He thus evaded to receive the charge-sheet. Rule 9 of the Rules provides thus :
"9(l) The appointing authority or any authority to which it is subordinate or the disciplinary authority or any other authority empowered in that behalf by the Governor by general or special order, may place a Government servant under suspension-
(a) where a disciplinary proceeding against him is contemplated or is pending or
(b) where a case against him in respect of any criminal offence is under investigation, inquiry or trial;
Provided that where the order of suspension is made by an authority lower than the appointing authority, such authority shall forthwith report to the appointing authority the circumstances in which the order was made.
(2) A Government servant shall be deemed to have been placed under suspension by an order of appointing authority-
(a) with effect from the date of his detention, if he is detained in custody whether on a criminal charge or otherwise, for a period exceeding forty eight hours;
(b) with effect from the date of his conviction, if in the event of conviction for an offence, he is sanctioned to a term of imprisonment exceeding forty eight hours and is not forthwith dismissed or removed or compulsorily retired consequent to such convict
