Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

18. Before we turn to the other decision, we may reproduce paragraphs 11 and 12 of the same reported decision in Dr. R.K. Shastri's case (supra), for answering the argument canvassed by the appellants/petitioners. The same reads thus:-

"11. It is well settled that when an employee is kept under suspension pending enquiry, he retains his lien over the post from which he is suspended. It is also a settled W.P. No.7440/2013, W.A. No.607/2015 & position that the station of posting immediately before suspension would be the headquarter vis-a-vis the suspended employee, unless the Competent Authority changes the headquarter of the suspended employee in public interest. It is also well settled that any vacancy caused on account of suspension pending enquiry, is to be filled by a reservist and where a reservist is not available by officiating appointment. Therefore on revocation of suspension, the employee becomes entitled to report back to his place of posting from where he was suspended. Once he reports back to duty, the employer may, in exercise of power of transfer, transfer him. Therefore, we agree with the finding of the Tribunal that the order of the Appellate Authority dated 6/8-7- 2002 to the extent it posts the first respondent to Karimganj and makes the revocation of suspension effective from the date of reporting at K.V., Karimganj, is invalid and liable to be quashed.

20. No other legal precedent, besides the case of Dr. R.K. Shastri (supra), has been brought to our notice, which will reinforce the statement found in paragraph 11 of the reported decision - to the effect that after the revocation of suspension, the employee becomes entitled to report back to his place of W.P. No.7440/2013, W.A. No.607/2015 & posting from where he was suspended. In our view, there is marked difference between having lien on a "post" held substantively whilst under suspension, than the entitlement of being "posted" at an appropriate place after revocation of suspension. We may, however, agree with the observation that it is settled position that the station of posting immediately before suspension would be the headquarter vis-à-vis the suspended employee, unless the Competent Authority changes the headquarter of the suspended employee in public interest. Similarly, there is no difficulty in accepting the position mentioned in paragraph 11 that an employee placed under suspension pending enquiry retains his lien over the "post" from which he was suspended. But, it does not follow that he has a vested right to be reinstated at the same place or location and nowhere else, as a rule.

22. We may observe that in service jurisprudence the field regarding appointment or termination including the lien on the "post" held substantively on which the person is appointed, is, one field. The other field is about the matters of disciplinary enquiry - to wit, suspension and including revocation of suspension. The third field is about the service conditions such as transfer, being incidence of service. The Authorities, for each of these fields, may be different or it is possible that in a given case, it can be the same Authority. It is also possible that the Authority who may place the employee under suspension may be different than the Authority empowered to transfer that employee. Absent explicit exclusion of power, composite order of revocation of suspension and transfer to another place can certainly be passed by the concerned Authority competent to pass order on those matters. Similarly, if the composite order were to be passed by the Superior Authority, to which that W.P. No.7440/2013, W.A. No.607/2015 & Authority (who has power to suspend and/or to revoke suspension and/or to transfer) is subordinate, there is no reason why a composite order cannot be passed by the Superior Authority.

26. No doubt, the three situations referred to above, are mutually exclusive. However, the scheme of the Rules of 1966 W.P. No.7440/2013, W.A. No.607/2015 & do not prohibit, either expressly or impliedly, passing of a composite order by the Authority who is empowered under the Rules to revoke the suspension as also to transfer the concerned employee.

27. Indeed, in the case of revocation of suspension by virtue of Rule 9(5)(a), it would be a case of revocation in law - de jure. Whereas, revocation of suspension by the Appropriate Authority under Rule 9(5)(b) may be a case of revocation in fact - de facto. The same may be true about the order passed by the Appellate Authority of setting aside the suspension order. Nevertheless, in absence of any express provision in the Rules of 1966, prohibiting the Appropriate Authority, competent to suspend subordinate employee and including to revoke the suspension as also to transfer the concerned employee, it is not open to doubt the existence of power to pass a composite order of revoking suspension as also to simultaneously transfer the employee to another place in public interest. Taking any other view would be a pedantic approach and only necessitating multiplicity of orders (ministerial work), to be passed by the same Authority.