Retrospective suspension under CCS (CCA) Rules held unsustainable; suspension applied only from the later formal order.

Rule 10(4) of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 applies only where a dismissal, removal or compulsory retirement has been set aside or rendered void by a court decision and the disciplinary authority then decides to hold a further inquiry. The setting aside of the criminal conviction did not automatically nullify the earlier dismissal; a formal order was required to give effect to the acquittal and then determine further departmental action. The suspension direction could not validly operate retrospectively from 8.4.2005, and was treated as effective only from 7.10.2008 under Rule 10(1), pending enquiry. The employee was therefore entitled to full pay and allowances for the intervening period.

---

---

Issues: Whether the order dated 7.10.2008 could validly treat the employee as deemed to have been placed under suspension with effect from 8.4.2005 under Rule 10(4) of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, and what legal effect should be given to the suspension direction contained in that order.

Analysis: The order dated 7.10.2008 set aside the dismissal imposed on the basis of conviction and directed a further enquiry. Rule 10(4) operates where a penalty of dismissal, removal or compulsory retirement has been set aside or rendered void in consequence of a court decision and the disciplinary authority decides to hold a further inquiry. The setting aside of the criminal conviction did not automatically render the earlier dismissal void, and the competent authority was required to pass a formal order giving effect to the acquittal and then decide on further departmental action. The direction in clause (iii) of the order was therefore not sustainable as a deemed suspension from 8.4.2005. It was treated as surplusage, and the order was read as one placing the employee under suspension only from 7.10.2008 under Rule 10(1), pending enquiry. On that construction, the employee was entitled to full pay and allowances for the period between acquittal and the later suspension order.

Conclusion: The deemed suspension from 8.4.2005 was held invalid, and the suspension direction was confined to operation from 7.10.2008. The issue was decided in favour of the employee to that extent.

---