TMI Blog1969 (10) TMI 75X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... services were lent to Himachal Pradesh Government for appointment as the Assistant Registrar. While he was so serving there, he was charge-sheeted on August 9, 1955 by the Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Punjab in connection with cer- tain matters which occurred in 1950 while he was working under the Punjab Government. Those proceedings, however, were kept in abeyance as the police in the meantime started investigation in those matters. In 1958,the Punjab Government decided to take disciplinary action against the respondent and informed the Himachal Pradesh Government of it on July 17, 1958. On July 16, 1958, however, the Himachal Pradesh Government had granted to the respondent 19 days leave preparatory to retirement, which was to take place on August 4, 1958. On being so informed, the Punjab Government by its telegram dated July 25, 1958 informed the Himachal Pradesh Government that it had no authority to grant such leave and requested that Government to cancel it and direct the respondent to revert to the Punjab Government immediately. On July 31, 1958 the Punjab Government sent a telegram. Ex. P-1, to the respondent at his home address as the respondent had already lef ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... en the Himachal Pradesh Government issued the notification dated August 2, 1958 curtailing his leave upto that date and that a copy of that notification with the endorsement calling upon him to report to the Punjab Government for duty on August 4, 1958 was sent to the respondent on August 6, 1958. He :also noted that the telegram dated July 31, 1958 informing the respondent of his suspension with effect from August 2, 1958 did ,not reach him till about the middle of August 1958. On these two facts it was contended by the respondent that he had already retired from service when the order reverting his service to the Punjab Government was passed, and that therefore, the subsequent proceedings starting with the order of suspension and ending with his dismissal were void. This contention was raised on the strength of rule 3.26(d) of the Punjab Civil Services Rules, as it then stood. That rule provided that a Government servant under suspension on a charge (of misconduct shall not be permitted to retire on his reaching the date of compulsory retirement but should be retained in service until the enquiry into the charge was completed and a final order was passed thereon. The argument ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d order of suspension admittedly made before the date of the respondent s retirement as required by the said rule 3.26(d) did not take effect by reason only that it was received by the respondent after the said date of retirement and which he must, therefore, be held to have retired on August 4. 1958 rendering the enquiry and the ultimate order of dismissal invalid. There can be no doubt that if disciplinary action is sought to be taken against a Government servant it must be done before he retires as provided by the said rule. If a disciplinary enquiry cannot be concluded before the (late of such retirement, the course open to the Government is to pass an order of suspension and refuse to permit the concerned public servant to retire and retain him in service till such enquiry is completed and a final order is passed therein. That Such a course was adopted by the Punjab Government by passing, the order- of suspension on July 31, 1958 cannot be gainsaid. That fact is clearly demonstrated by the telegram, Ex. P-1, which was in fact despatched to the respondent on July 31, 1958 by the Secretary, Co-operative Societies to the Punjab Government, informing the respondent that he was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... purposes of S. 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. and where it was held that such an award of the Collector is not a decision but an offer of compensation on behalf of the Government to the owner and is not effective until it is communicated to him. The making of the award, it was said, did not consist merely in the physical act of writing the award or signing it or tiling it in the office of the Collector. It also involved its communication to the owner either actually or constructively. No question, however, arose there whether an award can be said to have been communicated to the owner if it was despatched to him out was not actually received by him. In Bachhittar Singh v. he State of Punjab(1962]3 Supp. S. C R 713) a case of disciplinary action taken against a Government servant, it was said that an order would not be said to have come into effect until it was communicated, as until then it can be reconsidered and modified, and therefore, has till then a provisional character. That was a case where the Minister concerned had made a note on a file and no order in terms of that note was drawn up in tile name of the Governor as required by Art. 166(1) of the Constitution or com ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... greed with the main conclusion that the impugned orders were not beyond the Government s power they should not be taken to nave accepted the interpretation which Dayal, J., had for himself and Mudholkar, J., placed on several of the rules considered by them. In view of these observations it is difficult to say whether the majority agreed or not with the view taken by Dayal, J.. that a Government s order becomes effective as soon as it is issued. The last decision cited before us was that of State of Punjab v. Amar Singh Harika(A. I. R. 1966 S. C. 1313) where one of the questions canvassed was whether an order of dismissal can be said to be effective only from the date when it is made known or communicated to the concerned public servant. The facts of the case show that though the order of dismissal was passed on June 3, 1949 and a copy thereof was sent to other 6 persons noted thereunder, no copy was sent to the concerned public servant who came to know of it only on May 28, 1951 and that too only through another officer. On these facts, the Court held, rejecting the contention that the order became effective as soon as it was issued, that the mere passing of the order of dismis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and despatched to him before such date. An officer against whom action is sought to be taken, thus. may go away from the address given by him for service of such orders, or may deliberately give a wrong address and thus prevent or delay its receipt and be able to defeat its service on him. Such a. meaning of the word communication ought not to be given unless the provision in question expressly so provides. Actual knowledge by him of an order where it is one of dismissal, may, perhaps, become necessary because of the consequences which the. decision in The State of Punjab v. Amar Singh (A.I.R. 1966 S.C. 1313) contemplates. But such consequences would not occur in the case of an officer who has proceeded on leave and against whom an order of suspension is passed because in his case there is no question of his doing any act or passing any order and such act or order being challenged as invalid. In this view, we must hold that the order of suspension was validly passed and was communicated to the respondent before August 4, 1958, and therefore, was effective as from July 31. 1958. Accordingly, we allow the State s appeal and set aside the judgment and order of the High Court. B ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
