RUSHI GUMAN SINGH vs. STATE OF ORISSA

1 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

Rushi Guman Singh ...Appellant VERSUS State of Orissa & Ors. ...Respondents J U D G M E N T SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR,J. 1. Leave granted. JUDGMENT 2. This appeal is directed against the order dated th 15 September 2011 of the High Court of Orissa at Cuttack dismissing the Writ Petition (C) No.16450 of 2010 filed by the appellant challenging the order th dated 25 February, 2009 directing that the appellant shall be under deemed suspension with effect th from 14 February, 2003. Page 1 2 3. Briefly stated the facts are that the appellant, who was working as a Soil Conservation Officer (Class I) with the Government of Orissa, was placed under

under Rule 12(1)(a) of the Orissa Civil Services (CCA) Rules, 1962 (in short “OCS (CCA) Rules”). However, the suspension was revoked during the pendency of th the enquiry proceeding on 20 July, 1999. In his th report, dated 30 March, 2000, the enquiry officer exonerated the appellant of all the charges. However, the disciplinary authority disagreed with the findings of the enquiry officer and issued a show cause notice th to the appellant dated 4 February, 2002 JUDGMENT proposing the punishment of dismissal. The appellant th submitted his reply to the show cause notice on 4 th March, 2002. By an order dated 14 February, 2003, the disciplinary authority passed an order imposing the punishment of removal on the appellant. It was th also directed that the period of suspension from 13 th June, 1998 to 20 July, 1999 is treated as such. Page 2 3 th 4. Aggrieved by the order dated 14 February, 2003, the appellant moved the Orissa Administrative Tribunal, (OAT), Cuttack Bench, Cuttack in OA No.994

Writ Petition (C) No.10653 of 2006 in the Orissa High th Court. By an order dated 24 June, 2008, the writ petition was allowed. The order of OAT was set aside th and the order of the Government of Orissa dated 14 February, 2003 was quashed. A direction was issued to the disciplinary authority to provide reasonable opportunity to the appellant before taking a final decision in the matter relating to the findings on the charges framed against him. Special Leave Petition (C) JUDGMENT No.24190 of 2008 filed by the State of Orissa against the aforesaid order of the High Court was dismissed by th this Court on 17 October, 2008. After dismissal of the aforesaid SLP, pursuant to the orders th passed by the High Court on 24 June, 2008, the disciplinary authority issued a show cause notice th dated 25 February, 2009 to the appellant calling for his representation. He was also informed that as per Page 3 4 the provisions of law in Rule 12(4) of the OCS (CCA) Rules, he has been placed under suspension from the th date of the original order of removal, i.e., 14

orders. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order of suspension, the appellant moved the OAT Bench at Cuttack in OA No.1915 © of 2009 which was dismissed. The appellant challenged the order passed th by the Government of Orissa dated 25 February, 2009 and the order passed by the OAT, by filing the Writ Petition (C) NO.16450 of 2010. The aforesaid writ petition has been dismissed by the High Court by an th order dated 15 September, 2011. It is this order JUDGMENT which has been challenged in the present appeal. 5. In the impugned order, the High Court has considered the provisions contained in Rule 12(4) of the OCS (CCA) Rules which reads as under :- “Rule 12(4). Where a penalty of dismissal, removal or compulsory retirement from service imposed upon a Government servant is set side or declared or rendered void in consequence of or by a decision of a Page 4 5

6. It has been held that under the aforesaid provision where a penalty of removal from Government service has been set aside by a Court of law and the disciplinary authority decides to hold a further inquiry against him, on the allegations on which the penalty of removal was originally imposed, JUDGMENT the Government servant shall be deemed to have been placed under suspension. In coming to the aforesaid conclusion, the High Court has relied on the ratio of law laid down by this Court in the case of H.L. 1 Mehra Vs. Union of India and the Constitution Bench Judgment in the case of Khem Chand Vs. 2 Union of India & Ors. 1 (1974) 4 SCC 396 2 AIR 1963 SC 687 Page 5 6 7. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties.

appearing for the appellant has submitted that after the order of removal was quashed by the High Court th on 24 June, 2008, the appellant was entitled to be reinstated in service. In passing the order th dated 25 February, 2009 retrospectively placing the appellant under the deemed suspension with effect th from 14 February, 2003, the respondents have wrongly invoked Rule 12(4) of the OCS (CCA) Rules. He submitted that the appellant was not under JUDGMENT suspension at the time when the order of removal was th passed on 14 February, 2003. Therefore, it was necessary for the respondents to consider the question as to whether the appellant was to be placed under suspension under Rule 12(1) of the OCS (CCA) Rules. Learned counsel submitted that this Court in the cases of H.L. Mehra and Khem Chand (supra) had considered a similar situation under Rule 10(4) of Page 6 7 the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 which is pari materia to Rule 12(4) of the OCS (CCA) Rules. Therefore, the law laid

9. Mr. Shibashish Misra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that the order under Rule 12(4) of the OCS (CCA) Rules dated th 25 February, 2009 was consequential to the direction th issued by the High Court on 24 June, 2008. By the aforesaid order, the High Court had directed to provide reasonable opportunity of hearing to the appellant before taking a final decision in the matter relating to JUDGMENT the findings on the charges framed against him. Therefore, under Rule 12(4) of OCS (CCA) Rules, the appellant was deemed to be placed under suspension, by operation of Law, even if he was not th under suspension at the time Order dated 14 February, 2003 was passed. Page 7 8 10. We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. We do not find any merit in the submissions of Mr. Viswanathan that even

th passed the order dated 14 February, 2003 directing the removal of the appellant from Government service, in breach of rules of natural justice, it was necessary for the Government to pass an order of suspension of the appellant under Rule 12(1). The High Court directed the Disciplinary Authority to continue with the Disciplinary Proceedings after giving an opportunity of hearing to the appellant. Rule 12(1) enables the appointing authority or any authority to JUDGMENT which it is subordinate to place a Government servant under suspension where a disciplinary proceeding against him is contemplated or is pending. The aforesaid stage in the present case came to an end when the appellant was suspended for the first time th on 12 June, 1998. Undoubtedly, the aforesaid order of th suspension was revoked on 20 July, 1999. Thereafter the appellant was removed from service on Page 8 9 th 14 February, 2003 when the disciplinary authority disagreed with the findings of the enquiry officer exonerating the appellant. It was this order of removal

a department had no option but to pass an order under Rule 12(4) directing that the appellant shall be th deemed to have been suspended w.e.f. 14 February, 2003. The aforesaid understanding of the Rules by the Government of Orissa as well as by the High Court is in consonance with the interpretation of the identical rule, Rule 12(4) which was under consideration of this Court in the case of Khem Chand (supra) . In Khem Chand’s case (supra) , the appellant had challenged JUDGMENT the vires of Rule 12(4) of Central Civil Service (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1957, this Court upon consideration of the entire matter held that the rule did not offend the provision contained in Article 19(1)(f) of the Constitution of India. 11. Mr. Viswanathan, however, submitted that this Court had held that Rule 12(3) will come into Page 9 10 operation when the appellate authority sets aside a penalty of dismissal, removal or compulsory retirement and remits the case to the authority which

unless the employee was earlier under suspension. But in the same situation, there would be deemed suspension when the order of removal is set aside by the Court. This, according to Mr. Vishwanathan, would render Rule 12(4) ultra vires Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. It is not necessary for us to examine the aforesaid submission on merits as the issue is no longer res integra. A three Judge Bench of this Court in Nelson Motis Vs. Union JUDGMENT 3 of India & Anr. , considered the scope and ambit of the provisions contained in sub-rule (3) and (4) of Rule 10 of OCS (CCA) Rules. The aforesaid rules are pari materia to Rule 12(3) and (4) of OCS (CCA) Rules. Rule 12(1), (3) and (4) of OCS (CCA) Rules reads as under : “12. Suspension – (1) The appointing authority or any authority to which it is subordinate or any authority empowered by the Governor or the appointing authority in that behalf may 3 (1992) 4 SCC 711 Page 10 11 place a Government servant under suspension – (a) where a disciplinary proceeding against him is contemplated or is pending, or (b) where a case against him in respect of

(4) Where penalty of dismissal, removal or compulsory retirement from service imposed upon a Government servant is set aside or declared or rendered void in consequence of or by decision of a court of law and disciplinary authority, on a consideration of the circumstances of the case decides to hold a further inquiry against him on the allegation on which the penalty of dismissal, removal or compulsory retirement was originally imposed, the Government servant shall be deemed to have been placed under suspension by the appointing authority from the date of the original orders of dismissal, removal or compulsory retirement and shall continue to remain under suspension until further orders.” JUDGMENT 12. Considering the pari materia sub-rule (3) & (4) of Rule 10 of OCS (CCA) Rules, this Court has held that sub-rule (3) of Rule 10 is applicable to cases where interference with the penalty is connected with the Page 11 12 merits of the charges against the Government servant and is set aside by the appellate authority under Rule 27 or by the Revisional authority under Rule 29 or

to be under suspension only if he was under suspension at the time when the order of punishment was passed. On setting aside the order of punishment in such a case by the Departmental authorities, the findings against the Government servant disappeared and he is restored to the earlier position. This, however, is not the position under sub-rule (4), the language of which clearly stipulates that where a penalty of dismissal, removal or compulsory JUDGMENT retirement from service imposed upon a Government servant is set aside or declared or rendered void in consequence of or by a decision of a Court of law, the Government servant shall be deemed to have been placed under suspension by the appointing authority, during the pendency of a further proceeding against him, in a departmental enquiry until further orders are passed. This Court rejected the submissions that the Page 12 13 deemed suspension under Rule 12(4) should be read down to mean that the deemed suspension shall only be in case the employee was under the suspension at

“ The language of sub-rule (4) of Rule 10 is absolutely clear and does not permit any artificial rule of interpretation to be applied. It is well established that if the words of a statute are clear and free from any vagueness and are, therefore, reasonably susceptible to only one meaning, it must be construed by giving effect to that meaning, irrespective of consequences. The language of the sub-rule here is precise and unambiguous and, therefore, has to be understood in the natural and ordinary sense. As was observed in innumerable cases in India and in England, the expression used in the statute alone declares the intent of the legislature. In the words used by this Court in 4 State of U.P . v. Dr Vijay Anand Maharaj when the language is plain and unambiguous and admits of only one meaning, no question of construction of a statute arises, for the act speaks for itself. Reference was also made in the reported judgment to Maxwell stating: JUDGMENT “The construction must not, of course, be strained to include cases plainly omitted from the natural meaning of the words.” The comparison of the language with that of sub-rule (3) reinforces the conclusion that sub- rule (4) has to be understood in the natural sense. It will be observed that in sub-rule (3) the reference is to “a Government servant under suspension” while the words “under suspension”, are omitted in sub-rule (4). Also the sub-rule (3) directs that on the order of punishment being set aside, “the order of his suspension shall be deemed to have continued Page 13 14

13. Rejecting the next submission that sub-rules (3) and (4) cannot be divided into two separate classes and subjected to differential treatment. The court observed as under :- “ Let us examine the circumstances which separate the two categories of cases to be governed by the two sub-rules. Sub-rule (3) is attracted only to those cases of dismissal etc. where the penalty is set aside under the CCS (CCA) Rules, and the case is remitted for further inquiry or action in accordance with the direction. The application is, therefore, confined to cases where the penalty is set aside by the appellate authority while hearing a regular appeal under Rule 27 or by the President exercising the power of revision under Rule 29 or of review under Rule 29-A. On all such occasions a reconsideration of the merit of the charge is involved. The grounds mentioned in Rule 27 (2) permit the appellate authority to re-appraise the evidence on the record for examining whether the findings recorded by the disciplinary authority are warranted by such evidence. So far non- JUDGMENT Page 14 15

JUDGMENT “Provided that no such further inquiry shall be ordered unless it is intended to meet a situation where the Court has passed an order purely on technical grounds without going into the merits of the case.” Page 15 16

14. In our opinion, the aforesaid observations are a complete answer to the submissions made by Mr. Viswanathan. 15. We see no merit in the appeal and the same is hereby dismissed. JUDGMENT …..…….…………………J. [Surinder Singh Nijjar] …..……………………….J. [M.Y.Eqbal] Page 16 17 New Delhi; April 09, 2013. JUDGMENT Page 17