Case: Union Of India Vs. Rajiv Kumar

5. Respondent-employee in each case was arrested and detained in custody for a period exceeding 48 hours. With reference to Sub-Rule (2) of the Rule 10, the order was passed in each case indicating that in view of the detention in custody for a period exceeding 48 hours, the concerned employee is deemed to have been suspended with effect from the date of suspension and shall remain suspended until further orders.6. The background facts of the appeal relating to respondent-Rajiv Kumar is referred for the purpose of adjudicating the issues involved and the factual position in the appeal relating to Bani Singh would not affect ultimate conclusions. Rajiv Kumar and arrested on 26.3.1998 for allegedly accepting bribe and was released on bail on 2.4.1998. The order purportedly under Sub-Rule (2) of Rule 10 to formally place on record was passed on 15.5.1998. On 2.7.2000 the order dated 15.5.1998 was assailed before the Central Administrative Tribunal (in short the CAT) at its Delhi Bench on the ground that there was no reason for his continued suspension. The prosecuting agency filed challan on 2.9.2000. On 11.10.2000, Rajiv Kumar filed an application for interim relief. On 9.11.2000 on order was passed by the authorities continuing suspension. By judgment dated 14.3.2001 CAT directed the authorities to dispose of the matter by a reasoned and speaking order. An application for review was filed on 26.4.2001. It was rejected by an order dated 15.5.2001. In terms of the CATs directions, an order was passed on 21.5.2001. The same is stated to be the subject matter of challenge before the Mumbai Bench of CAT. On 3.8.2001, Civil Writ Petition No. 4746/2001 was filed before the Delhi High Court challenging the aforesaid orders dated 14.3.2001 and 15.5.2001. At this juncture, it needs to be noted that there was no challenge to the order dated 9.11.2000.7. By the impugned judgment, the Delhi High Court came to hold, as noted above, that CAT was not correct in remitting the matter back to the appointing authority for consideration of the matter afresh. It was, inter alia, observed that if a question of law had been raised before it, CAT was required to apply its mind and pass appropriate orders. The impugned order of suspension was quashed. It was held that the order dated 15.5.1998 cannot be treated to be one passed under Sub-Rule (2) of Rule 10. It was held that an order of suspension after release of the petitioner on bail could not have been passed under Sub-Rule (2) of Rule 10 and such order could have been passed only in terms of Sub-Rule (1) of Rule 10. View expressed by a Full Bench of the Allahabad High Court in Chandra Shekhar Saxena and others vs. Director of Education (Basic) U.P. Lucknow and Anr. (1997) Allahabad Law Journal 963) was followed. It was further held that a combined reading of Rules 10(1), 10(2), 10(3), 10(4) and 10(5)(a) makes the position clear that the order of suspension was effective for the period of detention and not beyond it where by legal fiction a person is deemed to be under suspension for being in custody fora period exceeding 48 hours.8. For the sake of brevity, different Sub-Rules have been referred as Rules 10(1), 10(2), 10(3), 10(4), 10(5)(a), 10(5)(b) and 10(5)(c).9. In Bani Singhs case, the logic was applied, since the legal position was held to be similar.

Court's reasoning:
15. Thus, it is clear that the order of suspension does not loose its efficacy and is not automatically terminated the moment the detention comes to an end and the person is set at large. It could be modified and revoked by another order as envisaged under Rule 10(5)(c) and until that order is made, the same continues by the operation of Rule 10(5)(a) and the employee has no right to be re-instead to service. This position was also highlighted in Balvantrai Ratilal Patel vs. State of Maharashtra (AIR 1968 SC 800 ). Indication of expression "pending further order" in the order of suspension was the basis for aforesaid view.It is well settled principle in law that the Court cannot read anything into a statutory provision or rewrite a provision which is plain and unambiguous . A statute is an edict of the Legislature. The language employed in a statute or any statutory provision is the determinative factor of legislative intent of policy makers.The inevitable conclusion therefore is that the order in terms of Rule 10(2) is not restricted in its point of duration or efficacy to the period of actual detention only. It continues to be operative unless modified or revoked under Sub-Rule 5(c), as provided under sub-Rule 5(a).27. Rule 10(5)(b) deals with a situation where a government servant is suspended or is deemed to have suspended and any other disciplinary proceeding is commenced against him during continuance of that suspension irrespective of the fact whether the earlier suspension was in connection with any disciplinary proceeding or otherwise. Rule 10(5)(b) can be pressed into service only when any other disciplinary proceeding is also commenced than the one for and during which suspension or deemed suspension was already in force, to meet the situation until the termination of all such proceedings. In contradiction, Rule 10(5)(a) has application in relation to an order of suspension already made or deemed to have been made. Rule 10(5)(b) has no application to the facts of the present case and no inspiration or support could be drawn for the stand taken for the respondents or the decision arrived at by the High Court. It is Rule 10(5)(a) alone which has application and the deemed suspension would continue to be in force till anything has been done under Rule 10(5)(c). Similarly, Rules 10(3) and 10(4) operate in different fields and merely because a specific provision is made for its continuance, until further orders in them itself due to certain further developments taking place and interposition of orders made by Court or appellate and reviewing authority to meet and get over such specific eventualities, in given circumstances and that does not in any way affect the order of suspension deemed to have been made under Rule 10(2).Though factually it is undisputed that fresh order of suspension had been passed in each case, the same relates to a separate cause of action and if any dispute is raised as regards its legality, the same has to be adjudicated by the concerned Court or by the Tribunal as the case may be, on its own merits and in accordance with