Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether an order of suspension against a Government servant takes effect when it is issued and despatched, or only when it is actually received by the Government servant before retirement.
Analysis: The governing rule required a Government servant under suspension to be retained in service until the disciplinary enquiry was completed. The order of suspension was made before the respondent's retirement date and was transmitted by telegram and letter to the address supplied by him for official communications. The decisive question was whether communication meant actual receipt. The Court held that communication denotes transmission or imparting of information, not actual receipt, and that once the order is sent out it is beyond the authority's control. Requiring actual receipt would permit a delinquent officer to defeat disciplinary action by evading service or delaying delivery. Accordingly, the suspension order was communicated before retirement and was effective from the date it was issued and despatched.
Conclusion: The suspension order was valid and effective before retirement; the disciplinary proceedings were not invalid on the ground that the order was received later.
Ratio Decidendi: An order intended to be communicated to a Government servant takes effect when it is issued and sent out to him, and not only upon his actual receipt of it.