Service suspension under concurrent disciplinary and criminal proceedings upheld where approving authority could validly reconsider and sanction the order.

Suspension of Port Trust officers was upheld where the selective suspension challenge lacked factual basis because only service-related accused could be suspended by the employer, while other accused were outside its control. The Court also held that approval by the Central Government under the service regulation was sufficient, and the approving authority could reconsider an earlier non-suspension view before granting approval. Suspension orders referring to both contemplated disciplinary proceedings and a pending criminal case were not inconsistent, as the two grounds were concurrent rather than mutually exclusive. A retirement-based challenge was not entertained in these writ petitions.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the suspension orders were invalid as instances of selective suspension when only some of the accused officers were placed under suspension. (ii) Whether the Chairman could issue the suspension orders only on an independent proposal by the appointing authority, or whether approval by the Central Government under the relevant regulation was sufficient. (iii) Whether suspension orders issued with reference to both clauses relating to contemplated disciplinary proceedings and pending criminal investigation or trial were inconsistent. (iv) Whether the suspension could not survive after retirement of two of the petitioners.

Issue (i): Whether the suspension orders were invalid as instances of selective suspension when only some of the accused officers were placed under suspension.

Analysis: The criminal case implicated seven accused, but only three were officers of the Port Trust and were the persons against whom the suspension power could be exercised by the Port Trust administration. The remaining accused were outside the Port Trust service. The fact that the other Port Trust officer had earlier been suspended separately did not make the later suspension of these petitioners discriminatory. The challenge based on selective suspension therefore lacked factual foundation.

Conclusion: The contention of selective suspension was rejected.

Issue (ii): Whether the Chairman could issue the suspension orders only on an independent proposal by the appointing authority, or whether approval by the Central Government under the relevant regulation was sufficient.

Analysis: Under the suspension regulation, the Chairman could issue the order in the case of the relevant class of employees, but the order would take effect only upon approval by the Central Government. The Central Government, being the approving authority, was competent to reconsider the matter and grant approval even after an earlier decision not to suspend had been taken. The administrative action was not vitiated merely because the proposal followed a direction to seek approval. The regulation required approval, not a prior fetter on the approving authority's power to reconsider and approve the suspension.

Conclusion: The approval and consequent suspension orders were held valid.

Issue (iii): Whether suspension orders issued with reference to both clauses relating to contemplated disciplinary proceedings and pending criminal investigation or trial were inconsistent.

Analysis: The regulation permitted suspension where disciplinary proceedings were contemplated or pending and also where a criminal case was under investigation or trial. These grounds were not mutually exclusive. Where both circumstances existed, reference to both clauses did not create any legal inconsistency or invalidate the orders.

Conclusion: The challenge based on inconsistency of the two clauses was rejected.

Issue (iv): Whether the suspension could not survive after retirement of two of the petitioners.

Analysis: That contention was outside the scope of the challenge to the suspension orders as framed in the writ petitions. The court declined to examine the continued effect of suspension after retirement in these proceedings.

Conclusion: No relief was granted on this contention.

Final Conclusion: The suspension orders were upheld in full, and the writ petitions were dismissed for want of merit.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the relevant service regulation makes suspension effective only upon approval by the competent higher authority, that authority may validly reconsider an earlier decision and approve suspension, and the presence of concurrent disciplinary and criminal proceedings does not invalidate the suspension order.

---