SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1993 Supreme(Cal) 31

High Court Of Calcutta
Paritosh Kumar Mukherjee
OM PRAKASH KAPOOR - Appellant
Versus
UNION OF INDIA - Respondent
.  .   Of  .
Decided On : 01/20/1993

Advocates Appeared:
ARCHANA SENGUPTA, R.M.CHATTERJI, S.K.KAPOOR, SUKLA BANERJEE

A suspension order based on a pending criminal investigation automatically ceases to be operative upon the acquittal or discharge of the accused.

Headnote:

SUSPENSION - SERVICE CONDITIONS - ARTICLE 311 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA - BRATHWAITE AND CO. LTD. CONDUCT, DISCIPLINE AND APPEAL RULES - Where a Government servant has been suspended pending a criminal investigation or trial, the order of suspension automatically ceases to be operative as soon as the criminal proceedings terminate by an acquittal or discharge of the Government servant. Initiation or continuance of departmental proceedings on some allegations cannot revive old order of suspension.

Fact of the Case:

Om Prakash Kapoor, Deputy Manager (Administration) of Braithwaite and Co. Limited, was suspended with immediate effect due to a criminal case instituted against him by the Central Bureau of Investigation. He challenged the suspension order, arguing that it should be lifted since he was discharged in the criminal case.

Finding of the Court:

The court held that the suspension order automatically ceased to be operative upon the discharge of the petitioner in the criminal case. The court relied on the judgments in Devendra Pratap Narain Rai Sharma v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Jatindra Nath Mondal v. State of West Bengal, which held that a suspension order based on a pending criminal investigation loses its force upon the acquittal or discharge of the accused.

Issues: Whether the suspension order remained valid after the petitioner's discharge in the criminal case.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the suspension order automatically ceased to be operative upon the discharge of the petitioner in the criminal case. The court relied on the judgments in Devendra Pratap Narain Rai Sharma v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Jatindra Nath Mondal v. State of West Bengal, which held that a suspension order based on a pending criminal investigation loses its force upon the acquittal or discharge of the accused.

Final Decision: The court allowed the writ petition, set aside the suspension order, and directed the reinstatement of the petitioner to his post with full salary and arrears.

PARITOSH KUMAR MUKHERJEE, J.

( 1 ) THE present writ petition was moved challenging the order of suspension dated December 18, 1980, being Annexure 'g' to the petition, on behalf of Om Prakash Kapoor, Deputy Manager (Administration), Braithwaite and Co. Limited.

( 2 ) IT appears that in view of the report submitted by the Cental Bureau of Investigation, Government of India, that a criminal case has been instituted against the Deputy Manager (Administration) of the Company, the petitioner was suspended with immediate effect and he was directed to be paid 50% of the salary by the said order of suspension dated December 18, 1980.

( 3 ) WHEN this writ petition was moved before me by Mr. S. K. Kapoor, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner, in presence of Mr. R. M. Chatterjee, learned Advocate for the respondent Company and Mrs. Archana Sengupta, learned Advocate for the Union of India, this Court after passing a reasoned order, inter alia, directed the Managing Director of the respondent Company to dispose of the representation dated July 14, 1992 and pass appropriate order in terms of the Judgment in the case of Devendra Pratap Narain Rai Sharma v. State of Uttar Pradesh, reported in 1962-I-LLJ-266 which has been followed by D. Basu, J. (as His Lordship then was) in the case of Jatindra Nath Mondal v. State of West Bengal, reported in A. I. R. 1968 Cal. 461.

( 4 ) IN the case of Jatindra Nath Mondal (supra) , D. Basu J. (as His Lordship then was) observed as follows:"suspension of delinquent in consequence of pending criminal case against the delinquent, discharge of delinquent in criminal case, the delinquent is deemed to have been reinstated and is entitled to recover full salary and allowances. Initiation or continuance of departmental proceedings on some allegations cannot revive old order of suspension. "

( 5 ) IN paragraph 10 of the said judgment, the learned single Judge observed as follows: "the answer has been clearly given by the Supreme Court in cases such as Om Prakash v State of U. P. (1956-I-LLJ-1) and other cases, as follows: (a) Where a Government servant has been suspended pending a criminal investigation or trial, the order of suspension automatically ceases to be operative as soon as the criminal proceedings terminate by an acquittal or discharge of the Government servant. (b) Immediately after such acquittal or discharge in the criminal case, therefore, the delinquent should be deemed to have been reinstated and is accordingly entitled to recover his full salary and allowances since the date of suspension. In such a case, no question of application of F. R. 54 of the Fundamental Rules (or any other similar Rule) also does arise because that Rule applies when a Government servant is acquitted in a Departmental proceedings (Raghava Rajagopala v. State of Assam, AIR-1965-Assam-109: Devendra v. State of U. P. 1962-I-LLJ-266. (c) Of course, notwithstanding the acquittal or discharge of the delinquent Government may initiate or continue departmental proceedings against the delinquent on the same charges upon which the criminal case had been brought (Partap Singh v. State of Punjab, 1966-I-LLJ-458) (d) But the initiation or continuance of the departmental proceedings on the same allegations cannot revive the old order of suspension which had expired by operation of law with the termination of the criminal proceedings, hence if the Government intend to keep the delinquent under suspension pending the disposal of the departmental proceedings, after the termination of the criminal case, a fresh order of suspension has to be made by the Government (1962-I-LLJ-266) (supra) except where there are statutory Rules providing for an automatic revival and continuance of the old order of suspension (Ibid Khem Chand v. Union of India), 1963-I-LLJ-665.

( 6 ) THIS Court on the date of resumed hearing of the writ petition on August 3, 1992 without staying the operation of the order of suspension directed the Char













Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top