TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
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>Supreme Court: Suspension Order Not Same as Dismissal for Govt Servants</h1> <h3>State Of Orissa And Ors Versus Shiva Parashad Das And Ors</h3> The Supreme Court clarified that an order of suspension from service against a Government servant does not trigger Article 311 of the Constitution unless ... - Issues:Whether an order of suspension from service passed against a Government servant falls under the purview of Art. 311 of the Constitution.Analysis:In the case at hand, the Supreme Court dealt with the issue of whether an order of suspension from service against a Government servant falls within the scope of Art. 311 of the Constitution. The respondent, a Forester, was suspended pending an inquiry into charges of negligence of duties. The High Court quashed the suspension order, stating it violated Art. 311(1) of the Constitution as the District Forest Officer, who issued the suspension, was subordinate to the appointing authority. However, the Supreme Court clarified that an order of suspension pending disciplinary inquiry does not constitute dismissal or removal from service under Art. 311. The Court cited the Mohammed Ghouse case to emphasize that suspension does not trigger the application of Art. 311 unless there is a dismissal or removal from service involved.The Court further examined Rule 12 of the Orissa Civil Services Rules, which allows the appointing authority or its subordinate to place a Government servant under suspension when a disciplinary proceeding is contemplated or pending. The District Forest Officer, as per a State Government notification, was designated as the appointing authority for Foresters. Therefore, the Court held that the District Forest Officer had the authority to suspend the respondent, and the suspension order was valid under Rule 12. The Court concluded that the High Court erred in quashing the suspension order based on the violation of Art. 311(1) and upheld the legality of the suspension.Consequently, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's judgment, and dismissed the Writ Petition. The Court directed that each party would bear its respective costs. The legal position clarified in this case led to the allowance of another appeal related to a similar issue. The judgment of the High Court in the second appeal was also set aside, and the Writ Petition filed by the respondent therein was dismissed, with each party bearing its respective costs.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
