Appeal No 124 of 1962
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated November 14 1960 of the Punjab High Court Circuit Bench Delhi in Civil Revision Case No 224 D of 1959
Janardan Sharma for the appellant
RGanapathy Iyer and P D Menon for the respondents
September 25
The judgment of the Court was delivered by 231 DAS GUPTA J
This appeal by special leave raises the question of validity of r 124 of the Central Civil Services Classification Control and Appeal Rules 1957 that were framed by the President and published by a notification dated February 28 1957
Rule 124 is in these words  124
Where a penalty of dismissal removal or compulsory retirement from service imposed upon a Government servant is set aside or declared or rendered void in consequence of or by a decision of a court of law and the disciplinary authority on a consideration of the circumstances of the case decides to hold a further inquiry against him on the allegations on which the penalty of dismissal removal or compulsory retirement was originally imposed the Government servant shall be deemed to have been placed under suspension by the Appointing Authority from the date of the original order of dismissal removal or compulsory retirement and shall continue to remain under suspension until further orders
 The question arises in this way
On July 1 1949 the appellant who was a permanent Sub Inspector of Co operative Societies Delhi was suspended by the Deputy Commissioner Delhi
On July 9 he was served with a charge sheet under r 61 of the Rules which had been framed by the Chief Commissioner Delhi
On a consideration of the report made by the officers who had held an enquiry into the several charges against him the Deputy Commissioner Delhi made an order on December 17 1951 dismissing this appellant
The appellant filed a suit on May 20 1953 praying for a declaration that the order of dismissal made against him was invalid in law being in violation of article 311 of the Constitution of India and for a further declaration that he still continued to be in service of the Government
232 The Trial Court decreed the suit on May 3 1 1954 declaring that the plaintiff s dismissal was void and inoperative and that the plaintiff continued to be in service of the State of Delhi at the date of the institution of the suit
The appeal by the Government of India was dismissed by the Senior Subordinate judge Delhi on December 31 1954
The decree was however set aside by the Punjab High Court on November 1 1955 in Second Appeal by the State and the suit was dismissed
Against this decision of the High Court the appellant preferred an appeal by special leave to this Court
This Court held that the provisions of article 3112 had not been fully complied with and the appellant had not had the benefit of all the constitutional protections and accordingly his dismissal could not be supported
The Court then passed the following order  We therefore accept this appeal and set aside the order of the Single judge and decree the appellant s suit by making a declaration that the order of dismissal passed by the Deputy Commissioner on December 17 1951 purporting to dismiss the appellant from service was inoperative that the appellant was a member the service at the date of the institution of the suit out of which this appeal has arisen
The appellant will get costs throughout in all courts
Under Order XIV Rule 7 of the Supreme Court Rules we direct that the appellant should be paid his fees which we assess at Rs 250
The judgment of this Court wag delivered on December 13 1957 and is reported in 1958 Supreme Court Reports at page 1080
233 On April 20 1955 ie shortly after the Government appeal had been dismissed by the Senior Subordinate judge the appellant instituted a suit in the Court of the Senior Sub judge Delhi out of which the present appeal has arisen
The defendants in this suit are 1
The Union of India 2
The State of Delhi and 3
The Collector and Registrar Co operative Societies Delhi
In this suit the plaintiff claims on the basis of the decree obtained by him in the earlier suit a sum of Rs 140428 as arrears of salary and allowances
The hearing of the suit was however stayed by the Trial Court on December 26 1955 in view of the pendency of the appellant s appeal in this Court against the decision of the Punjab High Court dismissing the earlier suit
As already stated this Court delivered the judgment in that appeal on December 13 1957
On December 26 1957 the appellant made an application to the Trial Court praying that the hearing of the suit be taken up
Before however the suit could be disposed of the defendants made an application to the Subordinate judge on August 7 1958 stating that the disciplinary authority had on a consideration of the circumstances of the case decided to hold a further enquiries against this appellant on the allegations on which he had been originally dismissed and that consequently the appellant should be deemed to have been placed under suspension by the appointing authority from December 17 1951 the date of the original order of dismissal
Accordingly it was contended by the defendants that the plaintiff s claim in the present suit was untenable
On February 14 1959 the Trial Court made an order in these terms  It is hereby ordered that the proceedings in the case shall remain stayed until the time the order of suspension is revoked under Rule 5 of the Central Civil Service Classification Control and Appeal Rules 1957 referred to above 234 or its being set aside by a competent tribunal or authority whichever event occurs earlier
The hearing of the suit is adjourned sine die and the proceedings shall be revived on the application of the plaintiff after the occurrence of any of the two events referred to above
 Against this order the appellant filed a revisional application in the Punjab High Court challenging the validity of r 124 of the Central Civil Service Classi fication Control and Appeal Rules 1957
A Division Bench of the High Court dismissed the revision petition rejecting the appellant s contention against the validity of r 124
Against that decision of the High Court the appellant has filed the present appeal after obtaining special leave from this Court
It is clear that if r 124 of the Central Civil Service Classification Control and Appeal Rules 1957is valid the appellant must be deemed to have been placed under suspension from December 17 1951
For it is not disputed that after the penalty of dismissal imposed on him had been rendered void by the decision of this Court the disciplinary authority did in fact decide to hold a further enquiry against him on the allegations on which this penalty of dismissal had originally been imposed
It is equally clear that if the appellant be deemed to have been placed under suspension from December 17 1951 the order made by the Trial Court staying the hearing of the suit and the order of the High Court rejecting the revisional application are not open to challenge
The sole question therefore is whether r 124 is valid in law
This rule forms part of the rules made by the President in exercise of the powers conferred on him by the proviso to article 309 and cl 5 of article 148 of the Constitution
The main provisions of article 309 is that subject to the provisions of the Constitution Acts of the appropriate Legislature may regulate the recruitment and conditions of service of per sons appointed to public services and posts in connection 235 with the affairs of the Union or of any State
The proviso to this Article makes it competent for the President or such other person as he may direct in the case of services and posts in connection with the affairs of the Union to make rules regulating the recruitment and the conditions of service of persons appointed to such services and posts until provision in that behalf is made by or under an Act of the appropriate Legislature under this Article
Clause 5 of article 148 makes a similar provision in respect of  the conditions of service in the Indian Audit and Accounts Department and provides inter alia that subject to the provisions of the Constitution and of any law made by Parliament the conditions of service of persons serving in the Indian Audit and Accounts Department shall be such as may be prescribed by rules made by the President after consultation with the Comptroller and Auditor General
Mr janardan Sharma rightly contends that this lower of the President to make rules is subject to all the provisions of the Constitution and consequently if in making the rule the rule making authority has contravened any of the provisions of the Constitution the rule is invalid to the extent of such contravention
According to Mr Sharma r 124 contravenes the provisions of article 142 article 144 article 191 f article 31 and also article 14 of the Constitution
The argument that the impugned Rule contravenes article 142 and article 144 is practically the same
Article 142 provides inter alia that any decree passed by the Supreme Court in the exercise of its jurisdiction shall be enforceable throughout the territory of India in such manner as may be prescribed by or under any law made by Parliament and until provision in that behalf is so made in such manner as the President may by order prescribe
Article 144 provides that all authorities civil and judicial in the territory of India shall act in aid of the Supreme Court
Mr Sharma s argument as far as we could 236 understand it is that under these provisions of articles 142 and 144 a duty lay on the President to do all that was necessary to give effect to the decree made by this Court in the earlier appeal and that by framing r 124 the President has in effect gone against the directions of this Court as contained in that decree
In our judgment there is no substance in this contention
If the decree of this Court had directed payment of arrears of appellant s salary and allowances and the effect of the rule made by the President was to deprive him of that right there might perhaps have been scope for an argument that the rule contravened the provisions of article 144
The decree made by this Court did not however contain any direction as regards payment of salary and allowances
It did contain a direction that the appellant will get his costs throughout in all courts
Quite clearly however the impugned rule does not in any way affect that right of the appellant
The only other relief granted by the decree was the making of a declaration that the order of dismissal passed by the Deputy Commissioner Delhi on December 17 1951 purporting to dismiss the appellant from service was inoperative and that the appellant was a member of the service at the date of the institution of the suit out of which the appeal had arisen
Does the impugned rule go against this declaration The answer in our opinion must be in the negative
The provision in the rule that the Government servant shall be deemed to have been placed under suspension from the date of the original order of dismissal does not seek to affect the position that the order of dismissal previously passed was inoperative and that the appellant was a member of the service on May 25 1953 when the first suit was instituted by the appellant
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 inspite of the order of suspension
There was a termination of the appellant  service when the order of dismissal was I made on 237 December 17 1951
When that order of dismissal was act aside the appellant s service revived and so long as another order of dismissal is not made or the service of the appellant is not terminated by some other means the appellant continues to be a member of the service and the order of suspension in no way affects this position
The real effect of the order of suspension is that though he continued to be a member of the Government service he was not permitted to work and further during the period of his suspension he was paid only some allowance generally called subsistence allowance which is normally less than his salary instead of the pay and allowances he would have been entitled to if he had not been suspended
There is no doubt that the order of suspension affects a government servant injuriously
There is no basis for thinking however that because of the order of suspension he ceases to be a member of the service
The provision in r 124 that in certain circumstances the Government servant shall be deemed to have been placed under suspension from the date of the original order of dismissal and shall continue to remain under suspension until further orders does not in any way go against the declaration made by this Court
The contention that the impugned Rule contravenes articles 142 or 144 is therefore untenable
Equally untenable is the appellant s next contention that the impugned rule contravenes the provisions of article 191f of the Constitution
The argument is that as a result of this Court s decree the appellant had a right to his arrears of pay and allowances
This right constituted his property and as the effect of the impugned Rule is that he would not for some time at least get those arrears it restricts his right
It may be conceded that the right to arrears of pay and allowances constituted property within the meaning of article 191f of the Constitution and further that the effect of r 124 is a 238 substantial restriction of his right in respect of that property under article 191f
The question remains whether this restriction is a reasonable restriction in the interests of the general public
No body can seriously doubt the importance and necessity of proper disciplinary action being taken against government servants for inefficiency dishonesty or other suitable reasons
Such action is certainly against the immediate interests of the Government servant concerned but is absolutely necessary in the interests
of the general public for serving whose interests the government machinery exists and functions
Suspension of a government servant pending an enquiry is a necessary part of the procedure for taking disciplinary action against him
It follows therefore that when the penalty of dismissal has been set aside but the disciplinary authority decides to hold a further enquiry on the same facts against him a fresh order of suspension till the enquiry can be completed in accordance with law is a reasonable step of the procedure
We have no hesitation in holding therefore that in so far as r124 restricts the appellant s right under article 191f of the Constitution it is a reasonable restriction in the interests of the general public
Rule 124 is therefore within the saving provisions of article 196 so that there is no contravention of the constitutional provisions
Mr Sharma drew our attention to the decision of this Court in Devendra Pratap vs State of Uttar Pradesh1 where the effect of r 54 of the Fundamental Rules framed by the State of U P under article 309 was considered
It was held that while r 54 undoubtedly enabled the State Government to fix the pay of a public servant where dismissal is set aside in a departmental appeal the rule has no application to cases in which the dismissal of a public servant is declared invalid by a civil court and he is reinstated and that it would not in such a contingency be open to the authority to deprive the 1 1962 Supp 1 section C R 315
239 public servant of the remuneration which he would have earned had he been permitted to work
This decision has however no application to a case like the present where because of the operation of r 12 4 of the Central Civil Service Classification Control  Appeal Rules 1957 the public servant is deemed to be placed under suspension from the date of the original order of dismissal
This brings us to the attack on the rule on the basis of article 14
According to Mr Sharma the result of the impugned rule is that where a penalty of dismissal removal or compulsory retirement from service imposed on a government servant is set aside or declared or rendered void in consequence of or by a decision of a court of law and the disciplinary authority decides to hold a further enquiry against him on the allegations on which the penalty was originally imposed the consequence will follow that the government servant shall be deemed to have been placed under suspension from the date of the original imposition of penalty whereas no such consequence will follow where a similar penalty is set aside not by a court of law but by the departmental disciplinary authority
According to Mr Sharma therefore there is a discrimination between a government servant the penalty of dismissal removal or com pulsory retirement on whom is set aside by a decision of a court of law and another government servant a similarpenalty on whom is set aside on appeal by the departmental disciplinary authority
The argument however ignores the result of rule 30 2 and rule 12 3 of these rules
Rule 30 2 provides inter alia that in the case of an appeal against an order imposing any of the penalties specified in rule 13 ie the penalty of dismissal removal or compulsory retirement and certain other penalties the appellate authority shall pass orders 1setting aside reducing confirming or enhancing the penalty or ii remitting the case to
the authority which imposed the penalty 240 or to any other authority with such direction as it may deem fit in the circumstances of the case
 Rule 12 3 provides that where a penalty of dismissal removal or compulsory retirement from service imposed upon a Government servant under suspension is set aside in appeal or on review under these rules and the case is remitted for further enquiry or action or with any other directions the order of his suspension shall be deemed to have continued in force on and from the date of the original order of dismissal removal or compulsory retirement and shall remain in force until further orders
 Where a penalty of dismissal removal or compulsory retirement imposed upon a government servant is set aside by the departmental authority on appeal it may or may not order further enquiry just as where a similar penalty is set aside by a decision of a court of law the disciplinary authority may or may not direct a further enquiry
Where the appellate authority after setting aside a penalty of dismissal removal or compulsory retirement makes an order under r 30 2 ii remitting the case to the authority which imposed the penalty for further enquiry rule 12 3 will come into operation and so the order of suspension which in almost all cases is likely to be made where a disciplinary proceeding is contemplated or is pending r 12 3 shall be deemed to have continued in force on and from the date of the original order of dismissal and shall remain in force until further orders
There is therefore no difference worth the name between the effect of rule 12 4 on a government servant the penalty of dismissal removal or compulsory retirement on whom is set aside by a decision of a court of law and a further enquiry is decided upon and the effect of r 12 4 on an other government servant a similar penalty on whom is set aside in appeal or on review by the departmental authority and a further enquiry is decided upon
In both cases the government servant will be deemed to be under suspension from the date of the
original order of dismissal except 241 that where in a departmental enquiry a government servant was not placed under suspension prior to the date when the penalty was imposed this result will not follow as r 12 3 would not then have any operation
It is entirely unlikely however that ordinarily a government servant will not be placed under suspension prior to the date of his dismissal
Rule 12 1 provides that the appointing authority or any authority to which it is subordinate or any other authority empowered by the President in that behalf may place a government servant under suspension  a where a disciplinary proceeding against him is contemplated or is pending or b where a case against him in respect of any criminal offence is under investigation or trial
Mr Sharma does not say that ordinarily any cases occur where a government servant is visited with a penalty of dismissal removal or compulsory retirement in a departmental proceeding without there being a previous order of suspension under the provisions of r 121 and we do not think any such case ordinarily occurs
Consequently the effect of r 123 will be the same on a government servant a penalty of dismissal removal or compulsory retirement on whom is set aside in appeal by the departmental authority as the effect of r 124 on a government servant a similar penalty on whom is set aside by a decision of a court of law
The contention that r 124 contravenes article 14 of the Constitution must therefore be rejected
As we find that all the above attacks on the validity of r 124 fail the further attack on the Rule on the basis of article 311 of the Constitution also necessarily fails
For whatever deprivation of property may result from r 124 would be by authority of law the law being r 124
We have therefore come to the conclusion that the High Court
is right in holding that r 124 is 242 valid and consequently in rejecting the appellant s revisional application
The appeal is dismissed
But in view of the circumstances of the case we make no order as to costs
Though the appellant has failed in this appeal which was brought by him as a pauper we make no order against him to pay the court fee which would have been paid by him if he had not been permitted to appeal as a pauper
Appeal dismissed


Summary:
The appellant a public servant was served with a charge sheet and after enquiry was dismissed
The filed a suit for a declaration that the order of dismissal was invalid and for a further declaration that he still continued to be in service
The suit was ultimately decreed by the Supreme Court by making the declarations sought
In the meantime the appellant filed another suit for recovery of arrears of salary and allowances
The suit was stayed pending the disposal of the appeal before the Supreme Court
After the judgment of the Supreme Court the authorities decided to hold a further enquiry against the appellant on the original allegations
In view of r 124 Central Civil Services Classification Control and Appeal Rules 1957 the trial court ordered that the proceedings shall remain stayed till the order of suspension was revoked or set aside
Rule 124 provides that where a penalty of dismissal removal or compulsory retirement is set aside by a court of law and the authorities decide to hold a further enquiry on the same allegations the public servant shall be deemed to have been placed under suspension from the date of the original order of dismissal removal or compulsory retirement
The appellant contended that r 12 4 offended articles 14 19 1 f 31 142 and 144 of the Constitution and was void
Held that r 124 did not offend any of the Articles of the Constitution and was valid
Article 142 provides that decrees passed by the Supreme Court shall be enforceable throughout the territory of India and article 144 provides that all authorities civil and judicial shall act in aid of the Supreme Court
Rule 12 4 did not go against the decree of the Supreme Court
and accordingly it did not contravene articles 142 and 144
The declaration by the 230 Supreme Court that the appellant was a member of the service at the date of the institution of the suit was not affected by the appellant being placed under suspension
The only things affected by r 124 were the salary and allowances of the appellant as to which the Supreme Court decree contained no directions
Rule 124 did not contravene article 191 f
Conceding that the right to receive arrears of salary constituted the appellant s property and that r 124 placed substantial restrictions on the exercise of that right the restrictions were in the interest of the general public
The taking of disciplinary action against public servants for inefficiency dishonesty etc
was absolutely necessary in the interests of the general public
Suspension of the public servant pending enquiry was a necessary and reaso nable part of the procedure
Devendra Pratap vs State of U P 1962 Sapp
1 section C R 3151334 distinguished
The argument that there was discrimination between a public servant the penalty of dismissal etc
on whom was set aside by a court and another public servant a similar penalty on whom was set aside on appeal by the departmental disciplinary authority was incorrect
Rule 123 provided that in the latter case also the suspension of the public servant shall be deemed to have continued in force from the date of the original order of dismissal etc
Only in the case of a public servant who had not been placed under suspension pending enquiry would r 12 3 not be operative
But such cases were rare
Rule 124 did nt  offend article 31 1 and whatever deprivation of property resulted from r 12 4 was by authority of law