Suspension ends on dismissal and is not revived automatically if dismissal is later set aside, the Supreme Court held.

Suspension under the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 ends when dismissal takes effect, and it is not automatically revived merely because the dismissal is later set aside. Rule 10(5)(b) applies only where a fresh disciplinary proceeding begins during an existing suspension; Rule 10(4) did not apply because the post-restoration inquiry was not on the same allegations; and Rule 10(5)(a) could not sustain a suspension after the employment relationship had ended. The continued suspension was therefore invalid, and salary became payable from the date of dismissal, subject to deduction of subsistence allowance already paid.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the order continuing the appellant's suspension could be sustained under Rule 10(5)(b), Rule 10(4) or Rule 10(5)(a) of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965. (ii) Whether the appellant was entitled to arrears of salary from the date on which the order of dismissal was made, after the suspension had ceased.

Issue (i): Whether the order continuing the appellant's suspension could be sustained under Rule 10(5)(b), Rule 10(4) or Rule 10(5)(a) of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965.

Analysis: Rule 10(5)(b) applies only where a government servant is already under continuing suspension and, during that continuance, another disciplinary proceeding is commenced. Once the appellant was dismissed, the existing suspension came to an end because dismissal dissolved the relationship of master and servant. The later setting aside of dismissal did not by itself revive the suspended status. Rule 10(4) was also inapplicable because the inquiry continued after restoration was not an inquiry on the very allegations on which the dismissal order had been founded. Rule 10(5)(a) could not help the respondents because a suspension cannot survive after the employment relationship itself has ended.

Conclusion: The continued suspension was invalid and could not be upheld under Rule 10(5)(b), Rule 10(4), or Rule 10(5)(a).

Issue (ii): Whether the appellant was entitled to arrears of salary from the date on which the order of dismissal was made, after the suspension had ceased.

Analysis: Since the earlier suspension ended when the dismissal order was made, the appellant was no longer under suspension after that date. In the absence of a valid order continuing suspension, he became entitled to salary from the date the dismissal took effect, subject only to deduction of subsistence allowance already paid. The earlier period of valid suspension stood on a different footing and was left to be determined under the relevant service rules.

Conclusion: The appellant was entitled to arrears of salary from 26 October 1967, after deduction of subsistence allowance.

Final Conclusion: The invalid continuance of suspension was quashed, and monetary relief followed for the post-dismissal period, while the pre-dismissal suspension period was left to be governed by the applicable service rules.

Ratio Decidendi: A suspension imposed pending inquiry comes to an end upon dismissal, and it cannot be treated as revived merely because the dismissal is later set aside unless the governing rules expressly provide for such revival.

---