RANJIT KUMAR MAJUMDAR Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This short order is to indicate the reasons for referring this matter to a larger bench of three Judges.

(2.) The petitioner is holding a civil post connected with defence. Pending inquiry into certain grave charges in respect of which a criminal prosecution was launched, he was suspended on 3/2/1995. The suspension is ordered under Rule 10 (1 of the central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 (the Rules). On 9/2/1995 the petitioner approached the central Administrative tribunal, Calcutta bench questioning the validity of the order of suspension on the ground inter alia that the 1965 Rules do not apply to civilian employees in defence services and, therefore, the suspension effected under the said Rules is incompetent and without jurisdiction. The petitioner relied upon a decision of this court in Union of India v. K. S. Subramanian. The tribunal, however, rejected the said contention relying upon the later decisions of this court in Union of India v. Indrajit Datta- and Director General of Ordnance Services v. P. N. Malhotra. The tribunal observed that merely because Article 31 1 (2 has no application to civilian employees in defence services, it cannot be said that the 1965 Rules have no application to them. It referred to Rule 3 of the said Rules which says inter alia, "these Rules shall apply to every government servant including civilian government servants in Defence Service. . " The tribunal further observed that inasmuch as the suspension in question was not pending any departmental inquiry but a criminal prosecution, the said order of suspension is not illegal. The tribunal also referred to the implied power of an employer to suspend his employee. The correctness of the tribunal's judgment is questioned herein.

(3.) In K. S. Subramanian, a bench of three learned Judges of this Court observed :