HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Bose
KALI PROSANNA ROY - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF WEST BENGAL - Respondent
Matter 130 Of 1951
Decided On : JULY 23, 1951
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW - ARTICLE 311 (2) - SUSPENSION - NOT REDUCTION IN RANK - ORDER OF SUSPENSION BY RENT CONTROLLER - VALIDITY - DELAY IN FILING APPLICATION - UNWARRANTED STATEMENTS BY PUBLIC OFFICIAL IN AFFIDAVIT - CONDEMNED.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioner, a Cashier at the Rent Controller's Office, Calcutta, was suspended on 27th May 1950 on the accusation of defalcation of Rs. 17,649-0-6. A formal complaint was lodged against him at the Hare Street Police Station, and he was released on bail on 7th June 1950. He was paid a subsistence allowance of Rs. 55 per month from the date of suspension till April 1951. A charge was framed against him under Section 409, Penal Code for criminal breach of trust in respect of a sum of Rs. 29,654-5-6, and the Criminal Proceedings were pending. He challenged the Order of Suspension, contending that it was passed without giving him a reasonable opportunity to show cause against the action proposed to be taken against him, in violation of Article 311 (2) of the Constitution of India.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the Order of Suspension did not amount to reduction in rank within the meaning of Article 311 (2) of the Constitution of India. Suspension is a temporary privation of office or privilege, and does not result in loss of office, degradation, or reduction in pay. The Court also held that the Rent Controller had the power to suspend the petitioner, either by virtue of Section 16, General Clauses Act 1897, if he was the appointing authority, or with the approval and sanction of the Provincial Government, which was the case in this instance.
Issues: 1. Whether the Order of Suspension amounted to reduction in rank within the meaning of Article 311 (2) of the Constitution of India? 2. Whether the Rent Controller had the power to suspend the petitioner?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court interpreted the expression 'reduced in rank' in Article 311 (2) as referring to permanent reduction or degradation of status, and not to temporary suspension. 2. The Court held that the Rent Controller had the power to suspend the petitioner, either by virtue of Section 16, General Clauses Act 1897, if he was the appointing authority, or with the approval and sanction of the Provincial Government, which was the case in this instance.
Final Decision: The Court discharged the Rule Nisi with costs, holding that the petition must fail.
( 1 ) THIS is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution for a Writ in the nature of Certiorari for quashing an Order of Suspension dated 27th May 1950 passed by the Rent Controller, Calcutta.
( 2 ) ON 22nd January 1945 the petitioner was appointed as Cashier at the Rent Controller's Office, Calcutta.
( 3 ) ON 27th May 1950 the petitioner was suspended by the Rent Controller upon the accusation of the Registrar of the Office of the Rent Controller that the petitioner had defalcated a sum of Rs. 17,649-0-6. A formal complaint was also lodged against the petitioner at the Hare Street Police Station on that very day and the petitioner remained in Police custody till 7th June 1950 when he was released on bail by Order of the Chief Presidency Magistrate, Calcutta.
( 4 ) THEREAFTER the petitioner made representations for payment of his salary to the Rent Controller and it appears that a sum of Rs. 55 per month is being given by way of subsistence allowance from the date of suspension and the petitioner has been paid such allowance up to April 1951.
( 5 ) ON 9th March 1951 a charge has been framed by the Presidency. Magistrate under Section 409, Penal Code for criminal breach of, trust in respect of a sum of Rs. 29,654-5-6 and the Criminal Proceedings are pending.
( 6 ) THE: petitioner moved this. application and obtained a Rule Nisi on 18th May 1951.
( 7 ) THE main contention of the Learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the Order of Suspension was passed without giving the petitioner a reasonable opportunity of showing cause against the action proposed to be taken, against him and so the Order is bad as it has been made in violation of the provisions of Article 311 (2) of the Constitution of India. Article 311 (2) is as follows :"no such person as aforesaid shall be dismissed or removed or reduced is rank until he has been given a reasonable opportunity of showing cause against the action proposed to be taken in regard to him. "
( 8 ) IT is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the suspension of the petitioner amounts to reduction in rank within the meaning of Article 311 (2) and therefore the petitioner should have been afforded the opportunity of showing cause as contemplated by the Article.
( 9 ) RELIANCE is placed on a decision of the Nagpur High Court reported in Provincial Govt. C. P. and Berar v. Shamsul Hussain, A. I. R. 1949 Nag. 118 in which Vivian Bose J. has held that "when a man is suspended he is in our opinion reduced in rank. " The learned Judge has given his reasons for his conclusion at p. 120 of the Report. (para. 12 ). With great respect to the learned Judge I am unable to agree with that decision.
( 10 ) THE dictionary meaning of "suspend" is "to debar usually, for a time, from any privilege, from the execution of an Office or from the enjoyment of an income. " It is temporary privation of office, or privilege. By reason of suspension the person suspended does not lose his office nor does he suffer any degradation. He ceases to exercise the powers and to discharge the duties of the Office for the time being. His rank remains the same and his pay does not suffer any reduction. He cannot draw his salary during the period of suspension. His powers, functions and privileges remain in abeyance but he continues to be subject to the same discipline and penalties and to the same Authorities. It appears to me that the learned Judges of the Nagpur High Court have put a strained construction on the words "reduced in rank" as occurring in Section 240 (3), Government of India Act, 1935. It is no doubt true that the person is brought down to an inferior condition for the time being but in my view the expression 'reduced in rank' in Article 311 (2) has reference to permanent reduction or degradation of status. (See Section 7, Police Act (Act V (5) of 1861) which draws distinction between Suspension and Reduction ).
( 11 ) IT was contended by the Learned Counsel for the petit
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.