MAHENDER SINGH versus UNION OF INDIA AND ANR

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.

Full judgment text Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mahender Singh

Appellant

Union of India and Anr

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Central Administrative Tribunal

  1. 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.