The concept of 'suspension' connotes temporary cessation of something as right, work or labour, and that a Government servant who has performed the duties of his office during a certain period cannot be subsequently placed under suspension for that period.

( 1 ) BY this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the applicant Abid mohammad Khan seeks a writ to quash an order dated 3rd January 1956, for the former Madhya Bharat Government placing him under suspension with effect from 31st January 1954 and a direction to restrain the Government from enforcing it.

( 2 ) THE petitioner was a Sub-Inspector in the Customs and Excise Department of the former State of Madhya Bharat. By an order dated 11th January 1954, he was suspended pending investigation into certain charges against him. In pursuance of the order of suspension, he handed over charge of his office on 31st January 1954. As a result of the enquiry, he was ultimately dismissed from service by an order passed by the Commissioner of Customs and Excise on 7th July 1954. That order of dismissal was quashed on 16th November 1955, by the Madhya bharat High Court in a petition under Article 226 of, the Constitution, Abid mohammad Khan v. State of Madhya Bharat (Civil Misc. Case No. 17 of 1955: (AIR 1956 Madh B 259 (A) ), filed by the applicant, holding that the order of dismissal of the petitioner was illegal and inoperative. Subsequently, on 3rd January 1956, the Raj-Pramukh of Madhya Bharat passed two orders, one reinstating the applicant in service and the other suspending him with retrospective effect from 31st January 1954. There is no dispute as regards these facts. The petitioner challenges the validity of the suspension order dated 3rd January 1956, on the ground that the Madhya Bharat Government had no power to suspend him with retrospective effect from 31st January 1954, and that under the decision dated 16th November 1955 of the Madhya Bharat High Court in Civil Misc. Case No. 17 of 1955: (AIR 1956 Madh-B 259 (A), he was entitled to be treated as on duty till the date of that decision and even after that. In the return filed on behalf of the State of Madhya Bharat, it was averred that the Madhya Bharat government had the power to suspend a Government servant with retrospective effect.

( 3 ) IT was argued by Mr. Daji, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, that suspension with retrospective effect was a contradiction in terms and that in the madhya Bharat Civil Services Rules (Punishment and Appeal), 1950, there was no provision giving the Government power to order suspension with retrospective effect, and that on 3rd January 1956, there was even no rule under which a government servant could be suspended pending an enquiry. Reliance was placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner on the decisions in om Prakash Gupta v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (S) AIR 1955 SC 600 (A-1) and ilemanta Kumar v. S. N. Mukherjee, AIR 1954 Cal 340 (B ). In reply, Mr. Sharma, learned Government Advocate, conceded that on 3rd January 1956, there was no rule which empowered the Government to suspend a civil servant pending an enquiry. He, however, contended that even in the absence of any rule there was inherent power in the Government to pass an order of suspension against a civil servant pending an enquiry and to make an order suspending him retrospectively so as to cover the period during which the civil servant did not, in fact, perform the duties of his office. It was also said that the question of the validity of the order of suspension affected a claim for arrears of salary for the period of suspension and could not be considered divorced from it and as a claim for arrears of salary for the period of suspension could not be made in proceedings under Article 226 of the constitution, the applicant could not be granted the redress he was seeking. ( 4 ) IN my judgment, the contention advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner that on 3rd January 1956, the Government could not make an order suspending the applicant with effect from 31st January 1954, must be given effect to. The Madhya Bharat Civil Services Rules (Punishment and Appeal), 1950, as they stood on 31st January 1954, only provided for su