K. Ramamoorthy, J. (Oral)

( 1 ) IN Writ petition No. 6666/98 the petitioner has challenged the proceedings dated 4. 12. 1998 assigning some work to the petitioner. The petitioner has also challenged the charge-sheet issued by the respondent on 16. 9. 1998.

( 2 ) IN Writ petition No. 247/99 the petitioner has challenged the order of suspension dated 23. 12. 1998. The petitioner has also challenged charge-sheet dated 7. 1. 1999.

( 3 ) HEARD the learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. A,k. Matta. In view of the facts and circumstances of two cases and in the interest of justice I am of the view that I should not go into the rival contentions of the parties at this stage. Mr. Matta in challenging the order dated 23. 12. 1998 referred to the judgment of the Supreme Court in State of Orissa through its Principal Secretary, Home Dept. vs. Bimal Kumar Mohanty, JT 1994 2 SC 51 and relied upon paragraph 13 therein. The right of an employer to suspend an employee is inherent in the contract of employment subject to the rules in this behalf. The point was considered by the Supreme Court in several cases. As the learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. Matta placed reliance on paragraph 13 of the judgment above referred to it has become necessary to give a brief survey of the decisions of the Supreme Court on this point.

( 4 ) IN R. P. Kapur vs. Union of India and Anr. , 1964 5 SCR 431 the Supreme Court had to deal with the suspension of an ICS Officer. On 18th of July, 1959 the appellant before the Supreme Court was suspended by the Governor of the Punjab on the ground that a criminal case was pending against him. The Supreme Court observed at page 445 that the general principle therefore is that an employer can suspend an employee pending an enquiry into his conduct and the only question that can arise on such suspension will relate to the payment during the period of such suspension .

( 5 ) IN Balvantray Ratilal Patel vs. The State of Maharashtra 1968 2 SCR 577 the Supreme Court was invited to decide the decision of Maharashtra Government suspending a member of the Bombay Medical Service Class II. The Supreme Court observed as under:

"ordinarily, therefore, the absence of such power either as an express term in the Contract or in the rules framed under some statute would mean that the master would have no power to suspend a workman and even if he does so in the sense that he forbids the employee to work, he will have to pay wages during the period-of suspension. Where, however, there is power to suspend either in the contract of employment or in the statute ortherulesframedthereunder,the order of suspension has the effect of temporarily suspending the relationship of master and servant with the consequence that the servant is not Bound to render service and the master is not bound to pay. This principle of law of master and servant is well-established: (See Hanley v. Pease and Partners, Ltd. , (1915) I K. B. 698, Walhwork v. Fielding, (1922) 2 K. B. 66 and the judgment of Cotton, L. J. in Boston Deep Sea Fishing and lceco. v. Ansell, (1888) 39 ch. D. 339. It is equally well-settled that an order of interim suspension can be passed against the employee while an inquiry is pending into his conduct even though there is no such term in the contract of appointment or in the rules, but in such a case the employee would be entitled to his remuneration for the period of suspension if there is no statute or rule under which it could be withheld. "

( 6 ) IN V. P, Gindroniya vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and Ors. , (1970) 3scr 448 the Supreme Court observed that when there is power to suspend, the suspension has the effect of temporarily suspending the relationship of master and servant with the consequence that the servant is not bound to render service and the master is not bound to pay . In Govt. of India, Ministry of Home Affairs and Ors. v. Tarak Nath Ghosh, (1971) 3 SCR 715 the Supreme Court observed as under:

"when serious allegations of misconduc

Click Here to Read the rest of this document