Suspension pending disciplinary enquiry is not dismissal under Article 311, and suspension by the appointing authority was upheld.

Suspension pending a departmental enquiry is distinct from dismissal or removal, so Article 311(1) is not attracted to a mere suspension order. The Court held that the High Court erred in quashing the suspension on that ground. It further held that Rule 12 of the Orissa Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1962 authorised the appointing authority, or an empowered subordinate authority, to suspend a Government servant when disciplinary proceedings were contemplated or pending. As the District Forest Officer had been made the appointing authority for Foresters, the suspension was valid and not vitiated for want of competence.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether an order placing a Government servant under suspension pending disciplinary enquiry falls within Article 311 of the Constitution; (ii) whether the District Forest Officer was competent under Rule 12 of the Orissa Civil Services (Classification Control and Appeal) Rules, 1962, to suspend the respondent as the appointing authority.

Issue (i): Whether an order placing a Government servant under suspension pending disciplinary enquiry falls within Article 311 of the Constitution.

Analysis: Suspension pending a departmental enquiry is distinct from dismissal or removal from service. Article 311(1) is attracted only when a civil servant is dismissed or removed, and it does not apply to a mere suspension pending disciplinary proceedings.

Conclusion: The suspension order did not offend Article 311 and the High Court was wrong in quashing it on that ground.

Issue (ii): Whether the District Forest Officer was competent under Rule 12 of the Orissa Civil Services (Classification Control and Appeal) Rules, 1962, to suspend the respondent as the appointing authority.

Analysis: Rule 12 permits the appointing authority, or an authority subordinate to it, or an authority empowered in that behalf, to place a Government servant under suspension when disciplinary proceedings are contemplated or pending. The record showed that the District Forest Officer had been constituted the appointing authority for Foresters by the State Government, and therefore had authority to issue the suspension order.

Conclusion: The suspension was valid under Rule 12 and not vitiated for want of authority.

Final Conclusion: The High Court's judgments were set aside and the writ petitions challenging the suspension orders stood dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi: A suspension pending disciplinary enquiry is not dismissal or removal within Article 311, and a suspension order is valid if passed by the appointing authority or another authority duly empowered under the applicable service rules.

---