VIGILANCE MANUAL VOLUME III - AP Online

598 DECISION - 286
The High Court of Bombay held that the order is on the face
of it bad in law. Rule 10(4)(b) empowers the authority to compulsorily
retire Government servant if it is in the public interest to do so and
also empowers Government to retire class II Government servants
after they have attained the age of 55 years.
The petitioner would be completing 55 years in 1989 and
had not completed it on 29-4-87 when the order was passed. Further,
sub-rule (4) does not provide for compulsory retirement on the ground
of Government’s convenience as stated in the order, but in public
interest. The High Court set aside the order on both these counts.
(286)
(A) Suspension — pending inquiry
Suspension pending inquiry means that inquiry has
been initiated and does not cover a situation where
inquiry is under contemplation.
(B) Suspension — ratification of
Ratification of order of suspension does not validate
suspension ordered by authority not competent to
do so.
Dr. Dilip Dineshchand Vaidya vs. Board of Management, Seth
V.S. Hospital, Ahmedabad,
1988(2) SLR GUJ 75
The petitioner was Honorary Professor in the K.M. School of
Post Graduate Medicine and Research, Ahmadabad. He was
suspended by an order dated 24-9-87 by the Superintendent of V.S.
Hospital. The order mentioned that it was passed on the directions
of the Chairman of the Board of Management of the Institute and
that the suspension was pending departmental inquiry. The petitioner
challenged the said order of suspension before the Gujarath High
Court.