D. S. MATHUR, C. J.

( 1 ) THESE four Special Appeals Nos. 129, 137, 189 and 234 of 1974 arise out of writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution, wherein order of suspension pending inquiry was challenged. Jai Singh Dixit, respondent in Special Appeal No. 129 of 1974, Rama Kant Saxena, respondent in Special Appeal No. 137 of 1974, and Ganesh Dutt Joshi, respondent in Special Appeal No. 234 of 1974, were suspended under Rule 49a of the U. P. Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules (to be referred hereinafter as C. C. A, Rules), while Inder Deo Tiwari, respondent in Special Appeal No. 189 of 1974, under Rule 1a of the UP. Punishment and Appeal Rules. The order of suspension pending inquiry was quashed in the first two Special Appeals because the respondent was suspended before the framing of charges or completion of the preliminary inquiry, and there were no compelling or exceptional circumstances to depart from the normal rule not to place a Government servant under suspension before the framing of the charges. The order of suspension was quashed in the other two special appeals on the basis of the Full Bench decision in the State of U. P. v. Jawahar Lal Bhargava (1974) A. L. J. 282. The State of Uttar Pradesh and the heads of departments or authorities concerned, who were respondents in the writ petitions, have preferred these special appeals which came up for hearing before a Division Bench which felt that in view of the deletion of the Note to Rule 49a of the C. C. A. Rules with retrospective effect, the decision in the above Full Bench case required reconsideration. Similarly, the Division Bench felt that the observation made in the Full Bench case regarding absence of inherent power to suspend an employee required reconsideration. The Division Bench did not frame any question of law, but referred all the special appeals for hearing by a larger Bench. This is how the matter has come up before this Full Bench of five Judges.

( 2 ) THE hearing of the special appeals on merits by all of us sitting together will result in unnecessary waste of time. We are, therefore, expressing our opinion on the question of law involved and thereafter the special appeals can be heard and decided by a Division Bench.

( 3 ) THE material part of Rule 49a of the C. C. A. Rules runs as below: A Government servant against whose conduct an inquiry is contemplated, or is proceeding, may be placed under suspension pending the conclusion of the inquiry in the discretion of the appointing authority :

Provided that in the case of any Government servant or class of Government servants, not belonging to a State service the appointing authority may delegate its power under this rule to the next lower authority. N. B. As a rule, suspension should not be recorded to unless the allegations against the Government servant are so serious that in the event of their being established, they may ordinarily be expected to warrant his dismissal, removal or reduction. Suspension, where deemed necessary, should, as far as possible, immediately precede the framing of charges and their communication to the Government servant charged.

( 4 ) RULE 1a of the U. P. Punishment and Appeal Rules has been similarly worded.

( 5 ) THE Note below Rule 49a of the C. C. A. Rules was deleted under Notification. No. 16 111-1973-Apptt. (3) dated March 23, 1974, and the Note below Rule 1a of the Punishment and Appeal Rules was deleted under Notification No. 18/111-1973 (3) Aptt. (3) dated March 23, 1973, and in both the cases the deletion was to take effect from October 29, 1968.

( 6 ) IN all these special appeals the meaning and scope of these rules is in issue.

( 7 ) THE learned advocate for the respondents in the special appeals (who shall hereinafter be referred to as Government servants) has raised two points with regard to the propriety of the constitution of a larger Full Bench to reconsider the points recently decided by a Full Bench, not only while decidin

Click Here to Read the rest of this document