MAHENDER SINGH versus UNION OF INDIA AND ANR
Retrospective suspension under Rule 10(4) is not justified unless the original termination was by way of penalty and set aside by a court. Here, the termination was a 'simpliciter discharge,' not a penalty, so Rule 10(4) does not apply and suspension cannot be retrospective.
- Parties
- Appellant: Mahender Singh; Respondents: Union of India and Anr
- Jurisdiction
- India
- Judgment Date
- 02 August 1991
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Appeal / Appeal From Central Administrative Tribunal
- Outcome
- Appeal allowed. Tribunal's order modified.
- Legal Topics
- Central Civil Services (classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965, Termination of Service, Suspension, Retrospective Suspension, Disciplinary Proceedings
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Mahender Singh
Appellant
Union of India and Anr
Respondents
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Central Administrative Tribunal
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether retrospective suspension from the date of original order of termination is justified under Rule 10(4) of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965.
Ratio Decidendi
Retrospective suspension under Rule 10(4) is not justified unless the original termination was by way of penalty and set aside by a court. Here, the termination was a 'simpliciter discharge,' not a penalty, so Rule 10(4) does not apply and suspension cannot be retrospective.
Court Disposition
Appeal allowed. Tribunal's order modified.
Orders
- Order of suspension dated November 10, 1988 to operate only prospectively.
- Appellant entitled to reinstatement with all back wages till the date of later suspension.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment