TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Government's Retrospective Employee Suspension Ruled Invalid</h1> The court held that the Central Government does not have the power to suspend an employee retrospectively. The suspension order dated 29-4-1952, effective ... - Issues Involved:1. Power of the Central Government to suspend an employee with retrospective effect.2. Validity of the suspension order dated 29-4-1952 for the period from 16-1-1951 to 28-4-1952.3. Interpretation of Rule 2 of Section 4 of Appendix 3 to the Fundamental Rules.4. Legal implications of suspension and retrospective suspension.Detailed Analysis:1. Power of the Central Government to Suspend an Employee with Retrospective Effect:The primary issue debated was whether the Central Government has the power to suspend an employee with effect from a prior date. The appellant, an employee in the Posts and Telegraphs Department, was placed under suspension following his arrest on 2-9-1950, with the suspension order dated 5-9-1950. He was discharged on 13-10-1950, but the suspension continued. The appellant challenged the continuation of his suspension, leading to a judgment by Bose, J. on 13-3-1952, directing the respondents to forbear from enforcing the suspension order. Subsequently, a fresh suspension order was issued on 29-4-1952, effective from 16-1-1951. The appellant contested the validity of this retrospective suspension.2. Validity of the Suspension Order Dated 29-4-1952 for the Period from 16-1-1951 to 28-4-1952:The appellant argued that no order of suspension could be made with retrospective effect unless expressly provided by the rules. The court examined whether the power of suspension included the power to suspend with retrospective effect. The relevant regulations and rules, including the Fundamental Rules and the Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, were scrutinized. The court found that the rules did not explicitly confer the power to suspend retrospectively. The court held that the concept of suspension inherently implies a prospective effect, as it involves temporary deprivation of office or position.3. Interpretation of Rule 2 of Section 4 of Appendix 3 to the Fundamental Rules:Rule 2 of Section 4 of Appendix 3 to the Fundamental Rules states that a government servant against whom a criminal charge is pending should be placed under suspension during periods when he is not detained in custody, if the charge is connected with his position as a government servant or involves moral turpitude. The court interpreted this rule to mean that the power to suspend must be exercised within the period when the criminal charge is pending and cannot be applied retrospectively. The court emphasized that suspension with retrospective effect is a contradiction in terms, as it would imply suspending an individual for a period during which they have already performed their duties.4. Legal Implications of Suspension and Retrospective Suspension:The court analyzed the legal implications of suspension, noting that suspension is not a punishment but a temporary measure to prevent an employee from performing their duties while under a cloud of suspicion. The court concluded that an order of suspension with retrospective effect is legally untenable, as it would involve nullifying work already performed and treating a past period of service as non-existent. The court held that the respondent's order of 29-4-1952, insofar as it purported to suspend the appellant retrospectively from 16-1-1951 to 28-4-1952, was invalid and unwarranted by law.Conclusion:The court allowed the appeal in part, setting aside the judgment of Bose, J. to the extent that it upheld the validity of the retrospective suspension order. The respondent was directed to cancel the orders of 29-4-1952 and 9-5-1952, insofar as they placed the appellant under suspension for the period between 16-1-1951 and 28-4-1952, and to refrain from giving effect to those orders. The appellant was entitled to his usual salary and allowances for the period in question. Each party was to bear its own costs in the trial court, with the appellant awarded costs for the appeal.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
