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 the suspension order was effectively communicated before the expiry of the notice period for voluntary retirement so as to prevent the respondent from being deemed to have retired.
Analysis: Voluntary retirement under Rule 48 of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 could be withheld if the Government servant was under suspension before retirement became effective. The controlling question was whether the suspension order had been communicated to the respondent in time. Communication required dispatch to the correct address so that the order went out of the authority's control before the retirement date. On the facts, the Department knew the respondent was at NOIDA, yet the suspension order was initially sent to Nagpur and only later dispatched to the correct address. Since it was not effectively communicated before 1 September 2005, the order could not defeat the respondent's retirement.
Conclusion: The suspension order was not effectively communicated before the voluntary retirement took effect, and the respondent must be treated as having retired with effect from 1 September 2005.
Ratio Decidendi: An order affecting service rights becomes effective only when it is dispatched to the correct address and thereby communicated before the relevant cut-off date; dispatch to the wrong address does not amount to valid communication.