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