VIGILANCE MANUAL VOLUME III - AP Online

DECISION - 287
599
The High Court observed that when a legislature or rulemaking
authority intends to provide that suspension can be ordered
even when an inquiry is contemplated, then the authority will express
its intention by laying down that suspension can be ordered when
inquiry is contemplated. The High Court referred to the case of P.R.
Nayak vs. Union of India (AIR 1972 SC 554), where the Supreme
Court held that if the Rules provide for suspension only after an inquiry
is initiated, suspension cannot be ordered before the inquiry is initiated
and that suspension cannot be ordered when an inquiry is
contemplated unless the Rules provide to that effect. The High Court
observed that the words ‘pending inquiry’ clearly show that the inquiry
is, in fact, pending when the suspension is ordered. The dictionary
meaning of the word ‘pending’ cannot be taken in its isolation to mean
‘awaiting inquiry’ and the whole phrase ‘pending inquiry’ must be read.
Regulation 20(A) of the Ahmadabad Municipal Corporation
Regulations prescribed that an officer may be suspended from service
pending inquiry against him and hence the petitioner could not be
placed under suspension unless inquiry was pending when the
suspension was ordered.
The High Court observed that the Board did not independently
consider the question whether the petitioner should be suspended
pending inquiry but only considered whether the order of suspension
passed by the Superintendent should be approved or not and as
such the ratification of the order of suspension by the Board does
not validate the suspension.
(287)
Further inquiry
Disciplinary Authority can remit Inquiry Report back
to the Inquiry Officer for limited purpose, for
removing some ambiguity in the evidence or to