Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 6 of 6 (0.96 seconds)Article 309 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Khem Chand vs The Union Of India And Others on 13 December, 1957
We have set out the facts in sufficient detail to show
that there is no presumption that the Government always acts
in a manner which is just and fair. There was no occasion
whatever to protract the departmental inquiry for a period
of 20 years and keeping the appellant under suspension for a
period of nearly 11 years unless it was actuated with the
mala fide intention of subjecting him to harassment. The
charge framed against the appellant was serious enough to
merit his dismissal from service. Apparently, the
departmental authorities were not in a position to
substantiate the charge. But that was no reason for keeping
the departmental proceedings alive for a period of 20 years
and not to have revoked the order of suspension for over 11
years. An order of suspension of a government servant does
not put an end to his service under the Government. He
continues to be a member of the service in spite of the
order of suspension. The real effect of the order of
suspension as explained by this Court in Khem Chand v. Union
of
41
India, [1958] SCR 1080 is that he continues to be a member
of the government service but is not permitted to work and
further during the period of suspension he is paid only some
allowance-generally called subsistence allowance-which is
normally less than the salary instead of the pay and
allowances he would have been entitled to if he had not been
suspended. There is no doubt that an order of suspension
unless the departmental inquiry is concluded within a
reasonable time, affects a government servant injuriously.
The very expression 'subsistence allowance' has an
undeniable penal significance. The dictionary meaning of the
word 'Subsist' as given in Shorter Oxford English
Dictionary, Vol. II at p. 2171 is "to remain alive as on
food; to continue to exist". "Subsistence" means-means of
supporting life, especially a minimum livelihood. Although
suspension is not one of the punishments specified in r. 11
of the rules, an order of suspension is not to be lightly
passed against the government servant.
Board Of Trustees Of The Port Of Bombay vs Dilipkumar Raghavendranath Nadkarni ... on 17 November, 1982
In the case of Board
of Trustees of the Port of Bombay v. Dilip Kumar
Raghavendranath Nadkarni & Ors., [1983] 1 SCR 828 the Court
held that the expression 'life' does not merely connote
animal existence or a continued drudgery through life. The
expression 'life' has a much wider meaning. Suspension in a
case like the present where there was no question of
inflicting any departmental punishment prima facie
tantamounts to imposition of penalty which is manifestly
repugnant to the principles of natural justice and fairplay
in action. The conditions of service are within the
executive power of the State or its legislative power under
the proviso to Art. 309 of the Constitution, but even so
such rules have to be reasonable and fair and not grossly
unjust. It is a clear principle of natural justice that the
delinquent officer when placed under suspension is entitled
to represent that the departmental proceedings should be
concluded with reasonable diligence and within a reasonable
period of time. If such a principle were not to be
recognised, it would imply that the Executive is being
vested with a totally arbitrary and unfettered power of
placing its officers under disability and distress for an
indefinite duration.
M. Gopala Krishna Naidu vs State Of Madhya Pradesh on 24 August, 1967
We do not
see why the principles enunciated by the Court in M. Gopala
Krishna Naidu v. State of Madhya Pradesh, [1968] 1 SCR 355
should not apply with equal vigour to a case like the
present. There is no reason why the power of the Government
to direct the stoppage of increments at the efficiency bar
on the ground of unfitness or otherwise after his retirement
which prejudicially affects him should not be subject to the
same limitations as engrafted by this Court in M. Gopala
Krishna Naidu while dealing with the power of the Government
in making a prejudicial order under FR 54, namely, the duty
to hear the government servant concerned after giving him
full opportunity to make out his case.
B. D. Gupta vs State Of Haryana on 18 September, 1972
There is thus a duty to hear the concerned Government
servant under FR 54 before any prejudicial order is made
against him. The same principle was reiterated in B.D. Gupta
v. State of Haryana, [1973] 2 SCR 323.
1