The main legal point established in the judgment is that temporary employment under Government empowers the Government to exercise the power of suspension independently of specific statutory provisions.

SOMNATH AYYAR, J.

( 1 ) THE petitioner, Mundevadi was an Assistant Engineer in the State of Bombay before he wa allotted to the new State of Mysore under the provisions of the States Reorganization Act. On 30 september 1957, when the Mysore State Electricity Board, which will hereafter be referred to in this judgment as the Board, was constituted under the provisions of the Electricity Supply Act, 1948; he became an employee of that Board, and, as declared by Government by their notification of 20/23 September, 1957, he ceased to be a Government servant with effect that date.

( 2 ) BUT, on 3 March 1966, the Board transferred the petitioner as an Executive Engineer of the public Works Department of the State, and, by an order made by Government which appeared in the gazette of 10 March 1966, he was posted as such Executive Engineer. He took charge of that post and continued in it until 10 July 1968, when Government placed him under suspension. That order of suspension was also published in the gazette, and, the petitioner asks us to quash the order of suspension and its publication in the gazette. In an application which the petitioner subsequently presented, he asks us also to declare rules 2 (d) and 16 of the Mysore Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1957, which will be referred to as the C. C. A. Rules, as invalid. We shall refer to the provisions of those rules at the appropriate stage.

( 3 ) THE main ground on which the impugned order of suspension is impeached is that since the petitioner was an employee of the Board and not of Government, there was no power in government to suspend him.

( 4 ) IT is seen from the order of suspension that it was not made under any particular statutory provisions, but, on behalf of Government, it was maintained that the source of the power to make the order of suspension was either the power created by rule 10 of the C. C. A. Rules or the general power of a master to place his servant under suspension.

( 5 ) RULE 10 of the C. C. A. Rules authorizes the suspension of a Government servant where a disciplinary proceeding against him is contemplated or is pending, or where a case against him in respect of any criminal offence is under investigation or trial.

( 6 ) IT is not disputed that a disciplinary proceeding against the petitioner was under contemplation when he was suspended. But it was contended for the petitioner that, since he was not a government servant but was an employee of the Board, that rule had no application.

( 7 ) THE expression "government servant" occurring in rule 10 is defined by rule 2 (d) and that definition consists of more than one part. The main part of the definition says that a person who is a member of the Civil Services of the State or who holds a civil post in connexion with the affairs of the State is a Government servant. The other part is an inclusive definition which says that a person who has been temporarily lent by the State Government to another authority and one whose services have been temporarily placed at the disposal of the Government of Mysore by another authority is also a Government servant.

( 8 ) WHEN the Board transferred the petitioner to the service of the State, what it did was to temporarily place his service of the disposal of Government. There is no merit in the assertion to the contrary. Although the Board did not say so in so many words, there was a deputation of the petitioner to a department of the State, and, if as urged on his behalf, his conditions of service formulated by the Board entitled him to certain advantages, such as deputation allowance and the like, that claim could be made in the proper way and no investigation into it could be made in this writ petition.

( 9 ) BUT it was said that that part of rule 2 (d) which impresses upon an employee borrowed by government the status of a Government servant, was invalid, since the Governor had no competence to make any such rule in respect of such bo

Click Here to Read the rest of this document