RUSHI GUMAN SINGHversusSTATE OF ORISSA & ORS.

                        [2013) 4 S.C.R. 862


A                      RUSHI GUMAN SINGH
                                 v.
                    STATE OF ORISSA & ORS.
                  (Civil Appeal No. 2968 of 2013)
                           APRIL 09, 2013
B
       [SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR AND M.Y. EQBAL, JJ.]

        SeNice Law:

c        Orissa Civil SeNices (CCA) Rules, 1962 - r.12(4) -
    Suspension under - During further enquiry by Disciplinary
    Authority after direction of Court - Held: Though the delinquent
    officer was not under suspension at the time of the order of
    removal from seNice, he was rightly directed to be deemed
0   suspended u/s.12(4) from the date of the original order of
    removal.

       The appellant-officer was placed under suspension
  on 12 June, 1998 pending a disciplinary inquiry
  u/s.12(1 )(a) of Orissa Civil Services (CCA) Rules, 1962.
E The suspension was later revoked during the inquiry
  itself i.e. on 20th July, 1999. Enquiry Officer exonerated
  the delinquent officer of all the charges. However,
  Disciplinary Authority passed punishment of removal
  from Service and directed that the period of suspension
F would be treated as such.
      When the order was challenged, the Court directed
  the disciplinary authority to provide reasonable
  opportunity to the delinquent officer, before· taking final
G decision. Thereafter, the disciplinary authority informed
  the delinquent officer that under the provisions of r.12(4)
  of OCS (CCA) Rules, 1962, he was placed under
  suspension from the date of the original order of removal
  from service and would continue to remain under
H                                 862
RUSHI GUMAN SINGH v. STATE OF ORISSA & ORS. 863


suspension until further orders. The challenge to the       A
suspension order was dismissed by the State Tribunal as
well as the High Court.

    In appeal to this Court, the appellant contended that
since the appellant was not under suspension at the time
                                                            8
when the order of his removal from service was passed,
he could not be placed under deemed suspension by
invoking r.12(4); that he could be placed under
suspension under r.12(1 ); and that r.12(3) would come
into operation, if the appellate authority sets aside a     C
penalty of removal and remits the case to the authority
for further enquiry.

    Dismissing the appeal, the Court

     HELD: 1. It is not correct to say that even though the 0
order of removal was set aside by the High Court on the
ground that the disciplinary authority had passed the
order directing the removal of the appellant from
Government service, in breach of rules of natural justice,
it was necessary for the Government to pass an order of E
suspension of the appellant under Rule 12(1) of OCS
(CCA) Rules, 1962. The High Court directed the
disciplinary authority to continue with the disciplinary
proceedings after giving an opportunity of hearing to the
appellant. Rule 12(1) enables the appointing authority or
any authority to which it is subordinate to place a F
Government servant under suspension where a
disciplinary proceeding against him is contemplated or
is pending. The aforesaid stage in the present case came
to an end when the appellant was suspended for the first
time on 12th June, 1998. Undoubtedly, the aforesaid G
order of suspension was revoked on 20th July, 1999.
Thereafter the appellant was removed from service on
14th February, 2003 when the disciplinary authority
disagreed with the findings of the enquiry officer
exonerating the appellant. It was this order of removal H
    864     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2013] 4 S.C.R.


A   which has been set aside by the High Court. At that stage,
    a department had no option but to pass an order under
    Rule 12(4) directing that the appellant shall be deemed to
    have been suspended w.e.f. 14th February, 2003 i.e. the
    date of his removal from service. [Para 10] [868-F-H; 869-
8   A-C]
        Khem Chand vs. Union of India and Ors. AIR 1963 SC
    687: 1963 Suppl. SCR 229 - relied on.
         H.L. Mehra vs. Union of India (1974) 4 SCC 396: 1975
c   (1) SCR 138 - referred to.

       2. Rule 12(4) cannot be read down to mean that the
  deemed suspension shall only be in case the employee
  was under the suspension at the time when the order of
  punishment was passed. Sub-rules (3) and (4) have been
D correctly divided into two separate classes and
  subjected to differential treatment. Sub-rule (3) is
  applicable to these groups of cases, where the
  interference with the penalty is connected with the merits
  of the charge. The cases which attract sub-rule (4) are
E those where the. penalty imposed on the government
  servant is set aside on technical grounds not touching
  the merits of the case. This situation is entirely different
  from that in the cases covered by sub-rule (3). [Paras 12,
  13] [871-F; 873-A, F-G; 874-E-F]
F
        Nelson Motis vs. Union of India and Anr. (1992) 4 SCC
    711:1992 (1) Suppl. SCR 325 - relied on.
                        Case Law..Reference:
          1975 (1) SCR 138           referred to      Para 6
G
          196.3 Suppl. SCR 229       relied on        Para 10
          1992 (1) Suppl. SCR 325    relied on         Para 11
      CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.
H 2968 of 2013.
RUSHI GU1v1AN SINGH v. STATE OF ORISSA & ORS. 865


    From the Judgment and order dated 15.09.2011 of the            A
High Court of Orissa at Cuttack in WPC No. 16450 of 2010.
    K.V. Viswanatha, Sunil Mund, T. Sakthi Kumaran and Sibo
Sankar· Mishra for the Appellant.
    Kirti Mishra, Shipashish Mishra for the Respondent.            B
    The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
    SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR, J. 1. Leave granted.
     2. This appeal is directed against the order dated 15th       C
September 2011 of the High Court of Orissa at Cuttack
dismissing the Writ Petition (C) No.16450 of 2010 filed by the
appellant challenging the order dated 25th February, 2009
directing that the appellant shall be under deemed suspension
with effect from 14th February, 2003.
                                                                   D
     3. Briefly stated the facts are that the appellant, who was
working as a Soil Conservation Officer (Class I) with the
Government of Orissa, was placed under suspension by order
dated 12th June, 1998 in contemplation of a disciplinary inquiry
as envisaged under Rule 12(1 )(a) of the Orissa Civil Services     E
(CCA) Rules, 1962 (in short "OCS (CCA) Rules"). However,
the suspension was revoked during the pendency of the enquiry
proceeding on 20th July, 1999. In his report, dated 30th March,
2000, the enquiry officer exonerated the appellant of all the
charges. However, the disciplinary authority disagreed with the    F
findings of the enquiry officer and issued a show cause notice
to the appellant dated 4th February, 2002 proposing the
punishment of dismissal. The appellant submitted his reply to
the show cause notice on 4th March, 2002. By an order dated
14th February, 2003, the disciplinary authority passed an order    G
imposing the punishment of removal on the appellant. It was
also directed that the period of suspension from 13th June,
1998 to 20th July, 1999 is treated as such.
    4. Aggrieved by the order dated 14th February, 2003, the
appellant moved the Orissa Administrative Tribunal, (OAT),         H
    866     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2013] 4 S.C.R.


A   Cuttack Bench, Cuttack in OA No.994 of 2003. On 7th July,
    2006, the OA was dismissed by the OAT. The appellant
    challenged the order of OAT in Writ Petition (C) No.10653 of
    2006 in the Orissa High Court. By an order dated 24th June,
    2008, the writ petition was allowed. The order of OAT was set
B   aside and the order of the Government of Orissa dated 14th
    February, 2003 was quashed. A direction was issued to the
    disciplinary authority to provide reasonable opportunity to the
    appellant before taking a final decision in the matter relating
    to the findings on the charges framed against him. Special
c   Leave Petition (C) No.24190 of 2008 filed by the State of
    Orissa against the aforesaid order of the High Court was
    dismissed by this Court on 17th October, 2008. After dismissal
    of the aforesaid SLP, pursuant to the orders passed by the High
    Court on 24th June, 2008, the disciplinary authority issued a
    show cause notice dated 25th February, 2009 to the appellant
0
    calling for his representation. He was also infonmed that as per
    the provisions of law in Rule 12(4) of the OCS (CCA) Rules,
    he has been placed under suspension from the date of the
    original order of removal, i.e., 14th February, 2003, from
    Government service and shall continue to remain under
E   suspension until further orders. Being aggrieved by the
    aforesaid order of suspension, the appellant moved the OAT
    Bench at Cuttack in OA No.1915 © of 2009 which was
    dismissed. The appellant challenged the order passed by the
    Government of Orissa dated 25th February, 2009 and the order
F   passed by the OAT, by filing the Writ Petition (C) N0.16450 of
    2010. The aforesaid writ petition has been dismissed by the
    High Court by an order dated 15th September, 2011. It is this
    order which has been challenged in the present appeal.
G        5. In the impugned order, the High Court has considered
    the provisions contained in Rule 12(4) of the OCS (CCA) Rules
    which reads as under :-
          "Rule 12(4). Where a penalty of dismissal, removal or
          compulsory retirement from service imposed upon a
H         Government servant is set side or declared or rendered
RUSHI GUMAN SINGH v. STATF OF ORISSA & ORS. 867
         [SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR, J.]
     void in consequence of or by a decision of a court of law       A
     and 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              B
     have been placed under suspension by the appointing
     authority form the date of the original orders of dismissal,
     removal or compulsory retirement and shall continue to
      remain under suspension until further orders."

     6. It has been held that under the aforesaid provision where C
a penalty of removal from Government service has been set
aside by a Court of law and the disciplinary authority decides
to hold a further inquiry against him, on the allegations on which
the penalty of removal was originally imposed, the Government
servant shall be deemed to have been placed under D
suspension. In coming to the aforesaid conclusion, the High
Court has relied on the ratio of law laid down by this Court in
the case of H.L. Mehra Vs. Union of/ndia' and the Constitution
Bench Judgment in the case of Khem Chand Vs. Union of
India & Ors.2                                                      E
      7. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties.

     8. Mr. K.V. Viswanathar., learned senior advocate
appearing for the appellant has submitted that after the order       F
of removal was quashed by the High Court on 24th June, 2008,
the appellant was entitled to be reinstated in service. In passing
the order dated 25th February, 2009 retrospectively placing the
appellant under the deemed suspension with effect from 14th
February, 2003, the respondents have wrongly invoked Rule
12(4) of the OCS (CCA) Rules. He submitted that the appellant        G
was not under suspension at the time when the order of removal
was passed on 14th February, 2003. Therefore, it was

1.   (1974) 4 sec 396.
2.   AIR 1963 SC 687 ..                                              H
    868     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2013] 4 S.C.R.


A necessary for the respondents to consider the question as to
  whether the appellant was to be placed under suspension under
  Rule 12(1) of the OCS (CCA) Rules. Learned counsel
  submitted that this Court in the cases of H.L. Mehra and Khem
  Chand (supra) had considered a similar situation under Rule
B 10(4) of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and
  Appeal) Rules, 1965 which is pari materia to Rule 12(4) of the
  OCS (CCA) Rules. Therefore, the law laid down in the aforesaid
  two judgments would be applicable t.o the facts of this case.

C      9. Mr. Shibashish Misra, learned counsel appearing for the
  respondents submitted that the order under Rule 12(4) of the
  OCS (CCA) Rules dated 25th February, 2009 was
  consequential to the direction issued by the High Court on 24th
  June, 2008. By the aforesaid order, the High Court had directed
  to provide reasonable opportunity of hearing to the appellant
D before taking a final decision in the matter relating to the
  findings on the charges framed against him. Therefore, under
  Rule 12(4) of OCS (CCA) Rules, the appellant was deemed
  to be placed under suspension, by operation of Law, even if
  he was not under suspension at the time Order dated 14th
E February, 2003 was passed.
       10. We have considered the submissions made by the
  learned counsel for the parties. We do not find any merit in the
  submissions of Mr. Viswanathan that even though the order of
F removal was set aside by the High Court on the ground that
  the disciplinary authority had passed the order dated 14th
  February, 2003 directing the removal of the appellant from
  Government service, in breach of rules of natural justice, it was
  necessary for the Government to pass an order of suspension
  of the appellant under Rule 12(1 ). The High Court directed the
G Disciplinary Authority to continue with the Disciplinary
  Proceedings after giving an opportunity of hearing to the
  appellant. Rule 12(1) enables the appointing authority or any
  authority to which it is subordinate to place a Government
  servant under suspension where a disciplinary proceeding
H
                                          -
RUSHI GUMAN SINGH v. STATE OF ORISSA & ORS. 869
         [SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR, J.)

against him is contemplated or is pending. The aforesaid stage          A
in the present case came to an end when the appellant was
suspended for the first time on 12th June, 1998. Undoubtedly,
the aforesaid order of suspension was revoked on 20th July,
1999. Thereafter the appellant was removed from service on
14th February, 2003 when the disciplinary authority disagreed           B
with the findings of the enquiry officer exonerating the appellant.
It was this order of removal which has been set aside by the
High Court on 24th June, 2008 in W.P.(C) No.10653 of 2006.
At that stage, a department had no option but to pass an order
under Rule 12(4) directing that the appellant shall be deemed           c
to have been suspended w.e.f_ 14th February, 2003. The
aforesaid understanding of the Rules by the Government of
Orissa as well as by the High Court is in consonance with the
interpretation of the identical rule, Rule 12(4) which was under
consideration of this Court in the case of Khem Chand (supra).
                                                                        0
In Khem Chand's case (supra), the appellant had challenged
the vires of Rule 12(4) of Central Civil Service (Classification,
 Control & Appeal) Rules, 1957, this Court upon consideration
 of the entire matter held that the rule did not offend the provision
 contained in Article 19(1)(f) of the Constitution of India.
                                                                        E
     11. Mr. Viswanathan, however, submitted that this Court
had held that Rule 12(3) will come into operation when the
appellate authority sets aside a penalty of dismissal, removal
or compulsory retirement and remits the case to the authority
which imposed the penalty for further enquiry. In such                  F
circumstances, there would be no deemed suspension unless
the employee was earlier under suspension. But in the same
situation, there would be deemed suspension when the order
of removal is set aside by the Court. This, according to Mr.
Vishwanathan, would render Rule 12(4) ultra vires Articles 14
and 16 of the Constitution of India. It is not necessary for us to      G
examine the aforesaid submission on merits as the issue is no
longer res integra. A three Judge Bench of this Court in Nelson
Motis Vs. Union of India & Anr. 3, considered the scope and
3.   (1992)4SCC711.                                                     H
    870      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [2013] 4 S.C.R.


A   ambit of the provisions contained in sub-rule (3) and (4) of Rule
    1O of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965. The aforesaid rules are pari
    materia to Rule 12(3) and (4) of OCS (CCA) Rules. Rule 12(1),
    (3) and (4) of OCS (CCA) Rules reads as under :
          "12. Suspension - (1) The appointing authority or any
B         authority to which it is subordinate or any authority
          empowered by the Governor or the appointing authority in
          that behalf may place a Government servant under
          suspension -

c                (a) where a disciplinary proceeding against him is
                 contemplated or is pending, or

                 (b) where a case agamst him in respect of any
                 criminal offence is under investigation or trial.
D         (3) 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
          inquiry or action or with any other directions, the order of
E         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.

F         (4) Where 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 decision of a court of law and
          disciplinary authority, on a consideration of the
          circumstances of the case decides to hold a further inquiry
G
          against him on the allegation 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 orders of dismissal,
H
·----
  RUSHI GUMAN SINGH. v. STATE OF ORISSA & ORS. 871
     . ' . [SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR, J.]

       removal or compulsory retirement and shall continue to            A
       remain under suspension until further orders." . .

         12. Considering the pari materia sub-rule (3) & (4) of Rule
  10 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 this Court has held that sub-
  rule (3) of Rule 10 is applicable.to cases where interference
                                                                       8
  with ttie penalty is connected with the merits of the charges
  against the Government· servant and is set aside by the
  appellate authority under Rule 27 or by the Revisional authority
  under Rufe 29 or by the Reviewing authority under Rule 29A.
  In such circumstances, Government servant shall be deemed
' to be under suspension only if he was under suspension at the C
  tiJll.e when the order of punishment was passed. On setting
  aside the order of punishmenr in such a case by the
  Departmental authorities, the findings against the Government
  servant disappeared and he is restored to the earlier position.
  This, however, is not the position under·sub-rule (4), the D
  language
      .      ..
             \
                of ·' which clearly
                               . --
                                    stipulates that 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, the Government servant shall be deemed to have been E
  placed under suspension by the appointing authority, during the
  pendency of a further proceeding against him, in a departmental
  enquir}o uritil further orders are passed. This Court rejected the
  submissions that the.deemed suspension under Rule 12(4)
  should. be read down .to mean that the deemed suspension F
  shall only be in case the employee was under the suspension .
  at the time when the order of punishment was passed. It was
  observed. by this_ Court as follows:, ...

      ,· "The language of sub-rule (4) of Rule 10 is absolutely clear
   · . ···and does not permit any artificial rule of interpretation to   G
   ~ •· be ,applied. It is well established that if the words of a
          statute are clear and free from any vagueness and are,
         .the~efore, reasonably susceptible to only one' meaning, it
      · must be' construed by giving effect.to that meaning,
               , ·' .         . ·..   ::. .       . -                    H
    872       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                    [2013] 4 S.C.R.


A         irrespective of consequences. The language of the sub-
          rule here is precise and unambiguous and, therefore, has
          to be understood in the natural and ordinary sense. As was
          observed in innumerable cases in India and in England,
          the expression used in the statute alone declares the intent
s         of the legislature. In the words used by this Court in State
          of U.P. v. Dr Vijay Anand Maharaf- when the language is
          plain and unambiguous and admits of only one meaning,
           no question of construction of a statute arises, for the act
          speaks for itself. Reference was also made in the reported
c         judgment to Maxwell stating:

                "The construction must not, of course, be strained to
          include cases plainly omitted from the natural meaning of
          the words."

D               The comparison of the language with that of sub-rule
          (3) reinforces the conclusion that sub-rule (4) has to be
          understood in the natural sense. It will be observed that in
          sub-rule (3) the reference is to "a Government servant
          under suspension" while the words "under suspension",
E         are omitted in sub-rule (4). Also the sub-rule (3) directs that
          on the order of punishment being set aside, "the order of
          his suspension shall be deemed to have continued in force"
          but in sub-rule (4) it has been said that "the Government
          servant shall be deemed to have been placed under
F         suspension". The departure made by the author in the
          language of sub-rule (4) from that of sub-rule (3) is
          conscious and there is no scope for attributing the artificial
          and strained meaning thereto. In the circumstances it is not
          permissible to read down the provisions as suggested.
          We, therefore, hold that as a result of sub-rule (4) a
G
          government servant, though not earlier under suspension,
          shall also be deemed to have been placed under
          suspension by the Appointing Authority from the date of
          the original order of dismissal, provided of course, that the
          other conditions mentioned therein are satisfied."
H
RUSHI GUMAN SINGH v. STATE OF ORISSA & ORS. 873
         [SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR, J.)
      13. Rejecting the next submission that sub-rules (3) and   A
(4) cannot be divided into two separate classes and subjected
to differential treatment. The court observed as under :-
    "Let us examine the circumstances which separate the two
    categories of cases to be governed by the two sub-rules.
    Sub-rule (3) is attracted only to those cases of dismissal B
    etc. where the penalty is set aside under the CCS (CCA)
    Rules, and the case is remitted for further,inquiry or action
    in accordance with the direction. The application is,
    therefore, confined to cases where the penalty is set aside
    by the appellate authority while hearing a regular appeal C
    under Rule 27 or by the President exercising the power of
    revision under Rule 29 or of review under Rule 29-A. On
    all such occasions a reconsideration of the merit of the
    charge is involved. The grounds mentioned in Rule 27 (2)
    permit the appellate authority to re-appraise the evidence D
    on the record for examining whether the findings recorded
    by the disciplinary authority are warranted by such
    evidence. So far non-compliance of a procedural rule is
    concerned, the appellate authority is enjoined, by clause
    (a) of Rule 27 to consider whether such non-compliance E
     has resulted in the failure of justice or in the violation of
     any constitutional provision, before interfering with the
     punishment. In view of its· sub-rule (3), the same
    consideration arises under Rule 29. Similarly, the
    provisions of Rule 29-A indicate that the power to review F
    can be exercised by the President only on discovery of such
    new evidence which has the effect of changing the very
    nature of the case. Sub-rule (3) of Rule 10 is applicable
    to these groups of cases, where the interference with the
    penalty is connected with the merits of the charge against G
    the government servant. On the setting aside of the order
    of punishment in such a case, the finding against the
    government servant disappears and he is restored to the
     earlier position. Consequently only if he was under
     suspension earlier, he will be deemed to have continued
     so with effect from the date of the order of dismissal. On H
    874      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                     [2013] 4 S.C.R.


A         the other hand, the second category of cases attracting
          sub-rule (4) is entirely on a different footing. Sub-rule (4)
          governs only such cases where there is an interference by
          a court of law purely on technical grounds without going
          into the merits of the case. In cases governed by the CCS
B         (CCA) Rules, a court of law does not proceed to examine
          the correctness of the findings of the disciplinary authority
          by a reconsideration of the evidence. Unless some error
          of law or of principle is discovered, a court of law does
           not ordinarily substitute its own views on the evidence. But
c         the matter does not end there. The scope of the sub-rule,
          for the purpose of automatic suspension has been further
           limited by the proviso as mentioned earlier in paragraph
          6, which reads as follows:
                 "Provided that no such further inquiry shall be
D                ordered unless it is intended to meet a situation
                 where the Court has passed an order purely on
                 technical grounds without going into the merits of
                 the case."
          The cases which attract sub-rule (4), are thus those where
E         the penalty imposed on the government servant is set
          aside on technical grounds not touching the merits of the
          case. Since at one stage the disciplinary authority records
          a finding on the charges against the government servant,
          which is not upset on merits, the situation is entirely different
F         from that in the cases covered by sub-rule (3). The
          classification is thus founded on an intelligible differentia,
          having a rational relation to the object of the rules and Rule
          10 (4) has to be held as constitutionally valid."
      14. In our opinion, the aforesaid observations are a
G complete answer to the submissions made by Mr. Viswanathan.
        15. We see no merit in the appeal and the same is hereby
    dismissed.

H K.K.T.                                            Appeal dismissed.