Retrospective suspension of a Government servant is impermissible; suspension operates only prospectively from the date of the order.

An order placing a Government servant under suspension cannot validly operate retrospectively to cover a prior completed period. The relevant service rules were held to confer only a power to suspend, meaning temporary deprivation of office from the date of the order onward; they did not create a deeming fiction that the employee had been under suspension while already on duty. The rule permitting suspension during a pending criminal charge authorised suspension for the relevant currency of that charge, but not a later order that would erase an antecedent period. The retrospective part of the suspension order was therefore invalid.

---

---

Issues: Whether an order placing a Government servant under suspension can validly operate retrospectively so as to cover a prior period.

Analysis: The power conferred by the relevant service rules was only a power to suspend. Suspension, in its ordinary legal sense, means temporary deprivation of office or position during the period of suspension; it does not comprehend the fiction that an employee is deemed to have been under suspension during a time when he was already on duty or had already occupied the office. The rule requiring an employee to be placed under suspension during the currency of a pending criminal charge authorized suspension for that period, but did not authorise making the order after the period had begun so as to wipe out a completed antecedent period. The scheme of the rules and the absence of any provision for adjustment or refund of full pay for a past period reinforced the conclusion that retrospective suspension was not contemplated.

Conclusion: An order of suspension could operate only from the date it was made and prospectively thereafter, and the part of the order purporting to suspend the employee for the earlier period was invalid.

---