Interim suspension and subsistence allowance under service rules remain valid; acquittal does not automatically end suspension.

Service rules may authorise interim suspension of a public servant pending departmental inquiry, and during that period the employee remains in service but is kept from duty. Under the Bombay Civil Service Rules, Rule 151 applies to all forms of suspension, including suspension pending inquiry or criminal proceedings, so only the prescribed subsistence allowance is payable and full salary is not due. A suspension order stated to continue pending further orders does not lapse automatically on acquittal in related criminal proceedings; termination requires a fresh order by the competent authority. The acquittal therefore does not by itself restore the employee or end the suspension.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the State Government had power to place a public servant under interim suspension pending enquiry into misconduct and to regulate payment during such suspension under the Civil Service Rules. (ii) Whether the order of suspension came to an end automatically on the appellant's acquittal in the criminal revision proceedings.

Issue (i): Whether the State Government had power to place a public servant under interim suspension pending enquiry into misconduct and to regulate payment during such suspension under the Civil Service Rules.

Analysis: The power to suspend an employee pending inquiry is recognised as part of the employer's authority where the employment relationship is governed by applicable statute or service rules. Interim suspension does not terminate the contract of service, but merely directs the employee not to perform duties during the subsistence of the relationship. The payment during such suspension depends on the governing rules. Rule 151 of the Bombay Civil Service Rules was held to apply to all kinds of suspension, including interim suspension pending departmental inquiry or criminal proceedings, and Rules 153 and 156 reinforced that construction. Rule 151 therefore authorised payment of only the prescribed subsistence allowance and not full pay during the period of interim suspension.

Conclusion: The State Government had the power to suspend the appellant pending inquiry, and Rule 151 validly governed payment during the suspension period.

Issue (ii): Whether the order of suspension came to an end automatically on the appellant's acquittal in the criminal revision proceedings.

Analysis: The suspension order expressly stated that it was to continue pending further orders. An order framed in those terms does not lapse automatically upon the conclusion of criminal proceedings, because termination of suspension requires a further order of the competent authority. The appellant's acquittal therefore did not by itself restore him to service or end the suspension.

Conclusion: The suspension did not automatically end on acquittal and continued until further order.

Final Conclusion: The appellant's challenge to the suspension and to the withholding of full salary failed, and the dismissal of the suit was affirmed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where service rules authorise suspension and regulate payment during suspension, interim suspension pending inquiry is valid and subsistence allowance alone is payable according to the rules; an order of suspension expressed to operate pending further orders does not end automatically on acquittal in related criminal proceedings.

---