Back
Allahbad High Court
G.D.SAHGAL
Mritunjai Singh - Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. - Respondent
Decided On : 08/20/1970
SUSPENSION - GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEE - POWER OF SUSPENSION - SUSPENSION ORDER PASSED BY GOVERNMENT - VALIDITY - INCREMENT DURING SUSPENSION - ENTITLEMENT.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, an overseer in the Irrigation Department of the Government of Uttar Pradesh, was suspended on 22-3-1969. The suspension order was issued by the Additional Chief Engineer, who was not the appointing authority. The petitioner challenged the suspension order on the ground that it was passed by an authority that was not competent to do so and that it was issued without any basis.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the suspension order was valid even though it was passed by the Government and not by the appointing authority. The court also held that the petitioner was entitled to his increments during the period of suspension as the contract of service continued even though he was under suspension.
Issues: 1. Whether the suspension order passed by the Government was valid? 2. Whether the petitioner was entitled to his increments during the period of suspension?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the Government had the power to suspend its employees even though there might not be a specific rule to that effect. This power is inherent in every employer and is not taken away by the rule that the appointing authority is to pass the order of suspension. 2. The court held that the petitioner was entitled to his increments during the period of suspension as the contract of service continued even though he was under suspension.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed in so far as it prayed for the quashing of the order of suspension. A mandamus was issued commanding the respondents to allow the petitioner his annual increments which have fallen due or are likely to fall due from time to time during the period of his suspension, subsistence allowance being paid in terms of the order contained in annexure 1 on the basis of the increased pay as and when the increment falls due.
2. After the suspension of the petitioner which order of suspension was served on him on 24-3-1969, it was only on 29-10-1969 that a charge-sheet was framed against him and his contention is that the suspension order was issued without there being any basis for the passing of the same. He also challenges the order of suspension passed against him on the ground that it was passed by an authority which was not the appointing authority and it could be passed only by such an authority which is the Chief Engineer and not the Additional Chief Engineer. The suspension order also mentions that the petitioner will draw 1/3rd (one third) of his pay plus dearness allowance as subsistence allowance during the period of suspension. The petitioner claims that he should be allowed his increments as due from the date of suspension and the subsistence allowance should accordingly be raised from time to time as and when the increments fall due.
A writ of mandamus also is accordingly prayed for commanding the respondents - State of U. P., Chief Engineer, Additional Chief Engineer and the Chief Engineer, Ramganga River Project to allow the petitioner his annual increment which fell due on 1-4-1969 and naturally the other increment which fell due during the pendency of the writ petition.
3. The writ petition is contested. We have, therefore, to see as to whether the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner or any of them can be accepted.
4. The first contention is that the order of suspension was not passed by the appointing authority but was passed by an authority who was not such an authority. The order of suspension is contained in annexure 1. It reads :
"Sri Mirtunjai Singh Overseer of Ramganga Project, Kalagarh is hereby placed under suspension with immediate effect and attached to the camp of P. A. to Addl. Chief Engineer, Ramganga Project, Kalagarh.
He will draw 1/3 (one third) of his pay plus dearness allowance as subsistence allowance during the period of suspension.
Ravi Dutt,
Addl. Chief Engineer (I. and P)"
Prima facie the order has been passed by the Additional Chief Engineer (Irrigation and Power) and not by the Chief Engineer. It is not disputed that the appointing authority of the petitioner is the Chief Engineer and not the Additional Chief Engineer. According to R. 1-A of the Punishment and Appeal Rules for subordinate service published with notification No. 2627/II-264, dated August 3, 1963 (as amended upto December 31, 1965) 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 athority may delegate its power under this rule to the next lower authority.
5. It is also not disputed that the Additional Chief Engineer is next lower authority than the appointing authority but in order that he may suspend the petitioner there must be a delegation of the power of suspension to him under Rule 1-A. It is nobody's case that there has been such a delegation. Therefore, the suspension if it has been made by the Additional Chief Engineer, is not in accordance with Rule 1-A.
6. We find from the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the opposite parties, paragraph 27, however, that the order of suspension was issued by the Government in compliance to which the petitioner was placed under suspension by the Additional Chief Engineer. The order annexure 1, therefore, is an order whi
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
