MAHENDRA BHUSHAN, J.—This is a Civil Second Appeal against the judgement of the learned Additional District-Judge No. 4, Jaipur City, dated 23.8.68 reversing the judgment and decree dated 22.8.66 of the learned Addi-tional Civil Judge, Jaipur City, in Civil Suit No. 295/63.

2. To properly appreciate the points involved in this appeal, the facts may be set out.

3. Sunderlal was a Cashier in the Settlement Department and in August-September, 1954 was posted at Sikar. He had gone on some Government duty from August 31, 1954 to September 5, 1954 after giving the charge of cash to his Assistant Cashier, one Kapur Chand. When he returned from tour and took over the charge from Kapur Chand, he found that cash was short by Rs. 3,777/8/9 and there was no accounting of Rs. 220/- in the account books. Other irregularities were also noticed. Because of the embezzlement of Government money, Sunderlal was placed under suspension vide order (Ex.1) of the Settlement Commissioner, Rajasthan, Jaipur dated September 13, 1954 with effect from September, 10, 1954. He along with Kapur Chand was tried under Section 409, I.P.C. He was acquitted of the said charge by the Special Magistrate, Jaipur, vide judgment dated September 5, 1956, and the appeal to the High Court by the State too was dismissed. The said Sunderlal was not reinstated in spite of the order of acquittal, and subsequently a departmental enquiry was started against him and he was dismissed from service with effect from October 12, 1961. Sunder Lal filed a suit against the State of Rajasthan for declaring his dismissal as illegal, and that he should be deemed to be continuing in Government Service. He also claimed Rs. 8,086.95 p. as arrears of pay etc, as detailed in para 5 of the plaint.

4. The suit was contested by the State of Rajasthan and it was pleaded that the departmental enquiry was validly launched against Sunderlal and his dismissal was valid, and further that the suit was time barred. The learned trial Court framed 8 issues and holding that after acquittal in a criminal case fresh suspension order was necessary in contemplation of the departmental enquiry, and because there was no fresh suspension order, Sunderlal was entitled to a salary, decreed the suit for Rs. 8,079.95 p. as claimed, but the other reliefs were refused.

5. The State preferred an appeal, which was decided by the learned Additional District Judge (4), Jaipur City, who accepted the appeal and holding that by acquittal of Sunderlal in the Criminal Case, the suspension order did not come to an end, and there was no need to issue a fresh suspension order, allowed the appeal and dismissed the suit of the plaintiff.

6. The short point which calls for determination in this appeal is, as to whether if an employee is suspended in contemplation of a criminal prosecution, then whether on acquittal of the employee the suspension order comes to an end?

7. The learned Additional District Judge has held that the suspension of Sunderlal was in exercise of the inherent powers and not under rules, and, therefore, it was not a mere suspension in contemplation of a criminal prosecution. In his opinion, therefore, such a suspension order will not come to an end even on acquittal of the Government Servant and will continue till the departmentalenq-uiry concludes. In September 1954, when Sunderlal was suspended, the Rajasthan Civil-Service (Classification Control and Appeal Rules), 1950 (here inafter referred to as the Rules) were in force. There was no provision for suspension ©fa Government Servant in connection with a criminal charge. Under rule 15(v) of the Rules, suspension was also one of the penalties to be imposed on misconduct, but under Explanation 5 to Rule 15 suspension pending enquiry was not considered to be a punishment. Therefore, the rules did contemplate suspension of a Government Servant pending enquiry. Apart from the rules, an employer has inherent powers to suspend its employee in case there is a criminal charge

Click Here to Read the rest of this document