- (1.) The respondent was employed as Inspecting Officer (Textiles) in the department of Supply of the government of India. Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him on the basis of a charge-sheet dated 27/2/1987. After holding an inquiry into the charges the penalty of compulsory retirement from service with effect from 27/5/1988, was imposed on the respondent by order dated 26/5/1988. The respondent filed an application (OA No. 604 of 1988 challenging the said order of compulsory retirement before the central Administrative tribunal, (hereinafter referred to as "the tribunal"). The said application of the respondent was allowed by the tribunal by judgment dated 8/8/1991 on the ground that the copy of the report of the Inquiry Officer had not been furnished to the respondent before the disciplinary authority passed the order of punishment. While setting aside the order of punishment the tribunal gave the following directions: "Accordingly this application is allowed and the impugned punishment order dated 26/5/1988 is quashed and set aside. However, we clarify that this decision will not preclude the disciplinary authority 533 from revising the proceedings and continuing with it in accordance with law from the stage of supplying the Inquiry Report. "during the pendency of the said proceedings before the tribunal the respondent had attained the age of superannuation and stood retired on 28/2/1991.
(2.) Thereafter by order dated 19-2-1992, the respondent was treated as deemed to have been placed under suspension from the date of compulsory retirement with effect from 27/5/1988 to 28/2/1991, under Rule 10 (4 of the central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules") and sanction was accorded by the President under Rule 9 (2 (a) of the central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, to continue the proceedings against the respondent. The respondent filed a second petition (OA No. 321 of 1992 before the tribunal challenging the said order dated 19-2-1992 regarding his deemed suspension. The said application has been allowed by the tribunal by the impugned judgment dated 5/8/1992. The tribunal has held that sub-rule (4 of Rule 10 could not be invoked against the respondent because he had not been suspended from service at any stage during the pendency of the earlier disciplinary proceedings. The tribunal has, therefore, directed that the order of suspension shall not be enforced as against the respondent. Feeling aggrieved by the said decision of the tribunal the appellants have filed this appeal.
(3.) Sub-rules (3 and (4 of Rule 10 of the Rules read as under: "(3 Where a penalty of dismissal, removal or compulsory retirement from service imposed upon a government servant under suspension is set aside in appeal or on review under these rules and the case is remitted for further inquiry or action or with any other directions, the order of his suspension shall be deemed to have continued in force on and from the date of the original order of dismissal, removal or compulsory retirement and shall remain in force until further orders. (4 Where a penalty of dismissal, removal or compulsory retirement from service imposed upon a government servant is set aside or declared or rendered void in consequence of or by a decision of a court of law and the disciplinary authority, on a consideration of the circumstances of the case, decides to hold a further inquiry against him on the allegations on which the penalty of dismissal, removal or compulsory retirement was originally imposed, the government servant shall be deemed to have been placed under suspension by the appointing authority from the date of the original order of dismissal, removal or compulsory retirement and shall continue to remain under suspension until further orders: Provided that no such further inquiry shall be ordered unless it is intended to meet a situation where the court has passed an order purely on technical grounds without going into the merits of the case. ";