VIGILANCE MANUAL VOLUME III - AP Online

DECISION - 99
333
order dated 18-2-50: “Under orders from the Surgeon General with
the Government of Bombay, conveyed in his memorandum No. S.97/
189/A dated 16-2-1950, you are informed that you are suspended
pending further orders with effect from the afternoon of 18th instant.”
The appellant was convicted by the First Class Magistrate
on 26-2-51 under section 161 I.P.C. and sentenced to one day’s
imprisonment and fine of Rs.1000. The Sessions Court dismissed
his appeal. The High Court allowed his revision petition. Thereupon
the appellant reported to the Government for reinstatement. The
High Court refused leave to appeal and the Supreme Court rejected
the S.L.P. On 20-2-53, Government decided that a departmental
inquiry should be held against the appellant and an inquiry was held
and an order of dismissal was passed on 11-2-60.
The appellant filed a suit on 11-4-58, when the inquiry was
pending on the ground that the suspension was illegal and inoperative
in law and the appellant continued in service as though no order of
suspension had been passed. The Bombay High Court gave a
declaration that the order of suspension was illegal and inoperative
in law and the appellant continued to be on duty till 11-2-1960 as
though no order of suspension had been made. The Government of
Maharashtra appealed and a Bench of the High Court held on 10-8-
61 that the order of suspension made by the respondent was legally
valid as it was in exercise of the inherent power as regards prohibition
of work and in exercise of its powers conferred by the rules as far as
the withholding of pay during enquiry against his conduct was
concerned. The appellant appealed to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court held that “the authority entitled to appoint
the public servant is entitled to suspend him pending a departmental
enquiry into his conduct or pending a criminal proceeding which may
eventually result in a departmental enquiry against him”. The
Supreme Court examined the question whether the order of
suspension came to an end on 15-2-52, when the appellant was
acquitted by the High Court in revision and whether in consequence