NELSON MOTIS versus UNION OF INDIA AND ANR.

NELSON MOTIS versus UNION OF INDIA AND ANR.

Sub-rule (4) of Rule 10 is constitutionally valid; its language is precise and unambiguous and applies in cases where a penalty is set aside on technical grounds without touching merits, providing for automatic suspension from the date of original dismissal regardless of earlier suspension. Acquittal in a criminal case does not conclude departmental proceedings. Distinction between sub-rules (3) and (4) is based on intelligible differentia relating to the purpose of the rules.

Parties
Appellant: Nelson Motis; Respondents: Union of India and Anr.
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
02 September 1992
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Decision on Appeal by Supreme Court
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Departmental Disciplinary Proceedings, Suspension, Constitutional Validity, Interpretation of Statutes
Service Law Administrative Law Constitutional Law Departmental Disciplinary Proceedings Suspension Constitutional Validity Interpretation of Statutes

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 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Nelson Motis

Appellant

Union of India and Anr.

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Decision on Appeal by Supreme Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether acquittal in a criminal case concludes the departmental disciplinary proceeding
  2. 2 Validity of sub-rule (4) of Rule 10 of Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965
  3. 3 Whether the automatic suspension under Rule 10(4) is unconstitutional

Ratio Decidendi

Sub-rule (4) of Rule 10 is constitutionally valid; its language is precise and unambiguous and applies in cases where a penalty is set aside on technical grounds without touching merits, providing for automatic suspension from the date of original dismissal regardless of earlier suspension. Acquittal in a criminal case does not conclude departmental proceedings. Distinction between sub-rules (3) and (4) is based on intelligible differentia relating to the purpose of the rules.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appellant to be paid salary for the period 1.10.1988 to 22.2.1989, after adjusting any amount already paid, within two months from date of judgment; failing which, the amount will carry interest at 12% per annum from 1st November 1992 till payment.