Court rules against continued suspension in disciplinary inquiry; orders salary arrears.

The court found the continuation of the disciplinary inquiry against the appellant to be valid but held that the appellant's continued suspension was not justified under Rule 10 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965. The court quashed the part of the order continuing the suspension, directing the respondents to pay the appellant arrears of salary from a specified date. The appeal was partly allowed, with each party bearing its own costs.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the continuation of the disciplinary inquiry against the appellant.
2. Validity of the appellant's continued suspension under sub-rule 5(b) of Rule 10 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of the Continuation of the Disciplinary Inquiry:
The appellant challenged the continuation of the disciplinary inquiry instituted by the Memorandum dated 8th March 1965. Initially, the inquiry was based on four charges, but charges Nos. 1, III, and IV were dropped by a subsequent Memorandum dated 9th December 1971, leaving only Charge II and three new charges.

- Court's Finding: The appellant's counsel conceded that it was not possible to assail the validity of the continuation of the inquiry. Therefore, the court held that the second part of the impugned order, which directed the continuation of the inquiry, was valid.

2. Validity of the Appellant's Continued Suspension:
The primary contention was whether the President had the authority to continue the appellant's suspension under sub-rule 5(b) of Rule 10 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965.

- Background: The appellant was originally suspended on 11th April 1963 due to a criminal investigation. He was later dismissed from service on 26th October 1967 following his conviction. However, his conviction was set aside by the Supreme Court on 19th March 1971, leading to the setting aside of the dismissal order on 9th June 1971. The President's order on 9th June 1971 also directed the continuation of the appellant's suspension until the termination of the disciplinary proceedings.

- Legal Provisions:
- Rule 10(1): Allows suspension where a disciplinary proceeding is contemplated or pending.
- Rule 10(3): Provides for the continuation of suspension if a penalty is set aside in appeal or review.
- Rule 10(4): Provides for suspension if a dismissal order is set aside by a court and further inquiry is decided.
- Rule 10(5)(a): States that an order of suspension continues until modified or revoked.
- Rule 10(5)(b): Allows for the continuation of suspension if another disciplinary proceeding is commenced during the existing suspension.

- Court's Analysis:
- Sub-rule 5(b) Applicability: The court held that sub-rule 5(b) requires that the government servant must be under continuing suspension at the time the new disciplinary proceeding is commenced. In this case, the appellant's suspension ended with the dismissal order on 26th October 1967, and it did not revive automatically when the dismissal was set aside.
- Sub-rule 4 Applicability: The court found that the inquiry continued under the impugned order was not based on the same allegations that led to the original dismissal. Thus, sub-rule 4 did not apply.
- Sub-rule 5(a) Applicability: The court rejected the contention that the suspension continued under sub-rule 5(a) after the dismissal, as the relationship of master and servant had ended with the dismissal.

- Conclusion: The third part of the impugned order continuing the suspension was outside the authority of the President and could not be justified under any sub-rule of Rule 10. The court quashed this part of the order and directed the respondents to pay the appellant's arrears of salary from 26th October 1967, deducting the subsistence allowance already paid.

Judgment:
The appeal was partly allowed. The court issued a writ of mandamus quashing the third part of the impugned order dated 9th June 1971, which continued the appellant's suspension. The respondents were directed to pay the appellant arrears of salary from 26th October 1967 after deducting the subsistence allowance. Each party was ordered to bear its own costs.

---