K.N. Goyal, J. - (1.) ADMIT .
(2.) AS only a short question is involved I proceed to dispose of the petition finally. The Petitioner was dismissed from government service after disciplinary proceedings. He challenged this order of dismissal in appeal which was also rejected. He also approached the Public Services Tribunal. The Tribunal has found that the Petitioner had not been given reasonable opportunity of hearing during the disciplinary inquiry. On this ground the order of dismissal was quashed. Thereafter the Tribunal added as follows: The claimant would be reinstated as a suspended employee for the entire period upto the date of his reinstatement as well.
(3.) THEREFORE the Director of Agriculture may if he so desires reinitiate the enquiry and pass an order on the basis of the conclusions recorded during the enquiry. Of course, when an order of dismissal is quashed by a court or Tribunal on the ground of non -furnishing of adequate opportunity to the delinquent it is always open to the disciplinary authorities to re -start the proceedings from the stage from which they were found vitiated. In case fresh disciplinary proceedings are so initiated the suspension may as will hereinafter be shown, deemed to be revived. It is however also open to the disciplinary authorities not to re -start the disciplinary proceedings and to drop the matter. The decision whether to start disciplinary proceedings again or not vests in the appointing authority and the Tribunal itself has recognised this in the order quoted above while observing that "the Director may if he so desires re -initiate the inquiry." The question of deemed revival of suspension would arise only when the Deputy Director takes such a decision. It is therefore not open to a court or tribunal to say that despite the quashing of the order of dismissal the Petitioner would be deemed to have continued to be under suspension. The original order of suspension had stood merged in the order of dismissal which replaced it, as held in Om Prakash Gupta v. State of U.P. : AIR 1955 SC 600. It was in order to get over the effect of this pronouncement that specific provision was made in various service rules for deemed continuance of suspension in case the appointing authority decides to hold further inquiry. The provision, so far as this State is concerned, is to be found in Rule 49A(4), Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, which reads as follows: (4) Where a penalty of dismissal or removal 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 appointing 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 or removal was originally imposed, whether the allegations remain in their original form or are clarified or their particulars better specified or any part thereof of a minor nature omitted - (a) if he was under suspension immediately before the penalty was awarded to him, the order of his suspension shall, subject to any directions of the appointing authority, be deemed to have continued in force on and from the date of the original order of dismissal or removal; (b) if he was not under such suspension, he shall, if so directed by the appointing authority, be deemed to have been placed under suspension by an order of the competent authority on and from the date of the original order of dismissal or removal. In the instant case the Petitioner was under suspension prior to his dismissal. Accordingly Clause (a) of this Sub -rule would apply. Thus his deemed continuance of suspension would come into being only if the appointing authority on a consideration of the circumstances of the case decides to hold further inquiry against him on the original charges.;