Case: Khemi Ram Vs. State of Punjab

petition in the Punjab High Court. That court took the view that the order of the appellants suspension was not valid as it actually reached him after his retirement. The State of Punjab filed an appeal to this Court, which was allowed, and it was held that as the order of suspension was passed and was communicated to the appellant before August 4, 1958, it was effective from July 31, 1958, and was a valid order. It is that judgment which has been reported in State of Punjab v. Khemi Ram to which reference has been made above. By its aforesaid judgment this Court remanded the case to the High Court with the direction that it should decide three other questions which had been left undecided because of the view which it had taken earlier. The case therefore went back to the High Court, and a Division Bench of that court has ultimately held that the writ petition is without merit, and has dismissed it. This is how the present appeal has arisen.5. The three questions which are the subject-matter of present appeal have been stated by the High Court as follows :1. Whether the respondent was no longer governed by the Punjab Civil Service Rules as his services had been borrowed by the Himachal Pradesh Administration and whether he ceased to be under the administrative control of the Punjab Government for that reason ?2. Whether it was permissible only for the Himachal Pradesh Administration to place the appellant under suspension and the Punjab Government had no such authority ?3. Whether the leave which had been granted to the appellant by the Himachal Pradesh Administration could be cancelled subsequently ?The High Court has decided all these questions against the appellant.6. It has been argued that as the appellants services had been borrowed by the Himachal Pradesh Administration, he was no longer governed by Rule 1.2 if the Punjab Civil Service Rules and ceased to be under the administrative control of that Government because his pay was no longer debitable to the Consolidated Fund of Punjab State. It has been urged that as the appellant went on deputation to the Himachal Pradesh Administration, his pay was debitable to the budget of that administration, and not to the Consolidated Fund of the Punjab State, so that he was not amenable to the control provided by the Punjab Rules. Rules 1.2 cannot however avail the appellant because all that it provides is that the Punjab Civil Service Rules shall apply to all government servants belonging to the categories mentioned in those rules who are under the administrative control of the Punjab Government and whose pay is debitable to the Consolidated Fund of that State. The purpose of the rule is only specify that the rules would apply to all government servants belonging to the various categories mentioned in the rules, and it has been stated further that they are to apply to those servants who are under the administrative control of the Punjab Government and whose pay is debitable to the Consolidated Fund of that State. This has been done to make it quite clear that the rules will not apply to those employees whose pay is not debitable to the Consolidated Fund of the State of Punjab, for the obvious reason that they would not be employees of the Punjab Government. It may also be mentioned that as the appellants services were replaced at the disposal of the Punjab Government with effect from August 4, 1958, his pay was debitable to the Consolidated Fund of Punjab State, at any rate, from that date. It is therefore futile to contend that Rule 1.2 could be so interpreted as to exclude the application of the Punjab Rules to the appellant merely because his services were lent over to the Himachal Pradesh Administration by way of deputation for some time.7. As regards the second point, the High Court has extracted Rule 20 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1957, on which reliance was placed by the for the petitioner and has rightly held that there is nothing in the rule to show that it was not permissible for the Punjab Government to make an order for the suspension of the appellant merely because it had placed his services at the disposal of the Himachal Pradesh Administration on deputation. Moreover, as has been stated, the appellant reverted to the State of Punjab with effect from August 4, 1958, and came under the direct administrative control of that State. The High Court therefore rightly decided that point also against the appellant.8. As regards the third point about the Punjab Governments authority to cancel the leave which had been granted to the appellant preparatory to retirement, it will be enough to say that Counsel for the appellant has not found it possible to refer to any rule under which the State Government could be said to be precluded from cancelling the leave. All that he has argued is that as the appellant automatically retired from service with effect from August 4, 1958, on completing the age of superannuation, it was not permissible for the State Government to cancel his leave. The argument runs counter to Rules 3.26(d) of the Punjab Rules which provides that a government servant under suspension on a charge of misconduct shall not be permitted to retire on reaching the age of superannuation but should be retained in service until the inquiry into the charge is concluded and a final order is passed thereon. That rules has already been interpreted by this Court in S. Pratap Singh v. State of Punjab ((1964) 4 SCR 733 : AIR 1964 SC 72 : (1966) 1 LLJ 458 ). The appellant therefore had no absolute right to retire from service, or to claim that he was entitled to retire automatically on reaching the age of superannuation when, as has been shown, he had been suspended already and a chargesheet had been served on him.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 0

Explanation:
0[ds]8. As regards the third point about the Punjab Governments authority to cancel the leave which had been granted to the appellant preparatory to retirement, it will be enough to say that Counsel for the appellant has not found it possible to refer to any rule under which the State Government could be said to be precluded from cancelling the leave. All that he has argued is that as the appellant automatically retired from service with effect from August 4, 1958, on completing the age of superannuation, it was not permissible for the State Government to cancel his leave. The argument runs counter to Rules 3.26(d) of the Punjab Rules which provides that a government servant under suspension on a charge of misconduct shall not be permitted to retire on reaching the age of superannuation but should be retained in service until the inquiry into the charge is concluded and a final order is passed thereon. That rules has already been interpreted by this Court in S. Pratap Singh v. State of Punjab ((1964) 4 SCR 733  : AIR 1964 SC 72  : (1966) 1 LLJ 458 ). The appellant therefore had no absolute right to retire from service, or to claim that he was entitled to retire automatically on reaching the age of superannuation when, as has been shown, he had been suspended already and a chargesheet had been served on him.As regards the second point, the High Court has extracted Rule 20 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1957, on which reliance was placed by the for the petitioner and has rightly held that there is nothing in the rule to show that it was not permissible for the Punjab Government to make an order for the suspension of the appellant merely because it had placed his services at the disposal of the Himachal Pradesh Administration on deputation. Moreover, as has been stated, the appellant reverted to the State of Punjab with effect from August 4, 1958, and came under the direct administrative control of that State. The High Court therefore rightly decided that point also against thepurpose of the rule is only specify that the rules would apply to all government servants belonging to the various categories mentioned in the rules, and it has been stated further that they are to apply to those servants who are under the administrative control of the Punjab Government and whose pay is debitable to the Consolidated Fund of that State. This has been done to make it quite clear that the rules will not apply to those employees whose pay is not debitable to the Consolidated Fund of the State of Punjab, for the obvious reason that they would not be employees of the Punjab Government. It may also be mentioned that as the appellants services were replaced at the disposal of the Punjab Government with effect from August 4, 1958, his pay was debitable to the Consolidated Fund of Punjab State, at any rate, from that date. It is therefore futile to contend that Rule 1.2 could be so interpreted as to exclude the application of the Punjab Rules to the appellant merely because his services were lent over to the Himachal Pradesh Administration by way of deputation for some time.