Certo Is this judgment real?
Beta, Supreme Court only. We check Supreme Court of India judgments only for now: a High Court citation reads "Not in our corpus", which never means it does not exist.

Supreme Court of India

STATE OF ORISSA AND ORS. versus SHIVA PARASHAD DAS AND ORS.

Decided
22 February 1985
Judges listed
D.A. DESAI (as the open data lists them; this may not name the whole bench)
Disposal
Appeal(s) allowed

Citations

Official
[1985] 2 S.C.R. 962 · 1985 INSC 32
Also cited as
  • (1985) 2 SCC 65 (5 citing judgments)

Learned from how other judgments cite this one, in their text or in the official Supreme Court Reports' lists of cases they refer to: each is cited this way by at least two judgments, and at least twice as often as any other citation to this judgment in that report. We hold no commercial reporter's text, only these citation strings.

Not shown
1 other citation string that other judgments attach to this one, on evidence too thin or too divided to publish.

Cited by

We found no other Supreme Court judgment we hold that cites this one.

Counted only in the Supreme Court judgments we hold whose text we could read, not in High Court judgments. We match each citation to a judgment automatically, so a citation we cannot match is not counted. "Cited" says only that a judgment refers to this one, not whether it followed, distinguished or overruled it.

The Court's text

Paragraphs from our copy of the Supreme Court Reports print, with the Court's own paragraph numbers, the printed page and, where printed, the margin letter. The Court did not number this judgment's paragraphs, so they are listed by page. Link to paragraph N with #para-N.

BALAKRISHNA ERA.DI J. In these two appeals filed by Special leave against two judgments of the Orissa High Court, the question raised is identical namely, whethe1 an order of suspension from service passed against a Government servant falls within the scope and purview of Art. 311 of the Constitution. The judgment appealed against in Civil Appeal No. 201 of 1971 is prior in point of time and in the judgment under challenge in C. A. No. 200 of 1971 the High Court has merely followed the former judgment. We shall, therefore, refer only to the facts relating to C. A. No. 201 of 1971.

p. 963, margin F

The respondent-Shri Ram Parshad-was appointed as a Forester by the Conservator of Forests, Berhampur, District Ganjam, on 17.7.1952. Subsequently, while working as a Forester under the District Forest Officer, Ghumsur North Division, the respondent was pieced under suspension by an order dated 26 2.1969 passed by the said District Officer, pending enquiry into charges of negligence of duties. The respondent thereupon filed a Writ Petition in the High Court of Orissa under Art. 226 of the Constit11tion challenging the order of suspension passed against him on the ground that it was made in contravention of Art. 31I of the Constitution as well as rule 12 of the Orissa Civil Services (Classification Control and Appeal) Rules, 1962 (hereinafter called the 'Rules'). The High Court by its impugned judgment allowed the Writ Petition and quashed the order of suspension holding the same to be in contravention of Art. 311 (!)of the Constitution. The High Court took the view that inasmuch as the respondent had been appointed as Forester by the Conservator of Forests, he could not have been validly suspended from service by the District Forest Officer, who is an authority subordinate to the Conservator of Forests. The correctness of this view taken by the High Court is called in question by the appellant-the State of Orissa in these two appeals.

p. 964

An order of suspension passed against a Government servant pending disciplinary enquiry is neithe:· one of dismissal nor of removal from service within Art. 311 of the Constitution. This position was clearly laid down by a Con~titution Bench of this Court in Mohammad Ghouse v. State of Andhra( It is unfortunate that this decision was not brought to the notice of the learned Judges of the High Court. Clause (I) of Art. 311 will get attracted only when a person who is a member of Civil Service of the Union or an All India Service or a Civil Service of a State or one who holds a civil post under the Union or a State is 'dismissed or 'removed' from service. The provisions of the said clause have no application whatever to a situation where a Government servant has been merely placed under suspension pending departmental enquiry since such action does not constitute either dismissal or removal from service. The High Court was, therefore, manifestly in error in quashing the order of suspension passed against the respondent on the ground that it was violative of clause (1) of Art. 31 l of the Constitution.

p. 964, margin D

Rule 12 of the Rules lays down that the appointing authority [19S7] S.C.R. 414. or any authority to which it is subordinate or any authority empo. wcred by the Governor or the appointing authority iu that behalf may pla~c a Government servant under suspension, where a disci· plinary proceeding against him is either contemplated or is pending. It is not in dispute that under a Notification issued by the State Government in exercise of the powers conferred by Rule· 11 of the Rules, the District Forest Officer was constituted "the appointing authority" in respect of Foresters with effect from 7.5.1962. It is therefore clear that ou the date on which the impugned order of suspension was passed-26.2.1969, the District Forest Officer under whom the respondent was working in the Ghumsur North Division was fully competent to pass the impugned order of suspension. Hence the High Court was perfectly right in rejecting the further contention advanced before it by the respondent herein that the impugned action had been taken in violation of the provisions of Rule 12.

pp. 964–965, margin G

We accordingly allow this appea!-C. A. No. 201 of 1971, set aside the judgment of the High Court and dismiss the Writ Petition in 0. J.C. No. 10 of 1970. The parties will bear their respective costs for this Court.

p. 965, margin C

Jn the light of the legal position enunciated above, it follows that C. A. No. 200 of 1971 has also to be allowed. The judgment of the High Court is accordingly set aside and the Writ Petition filed by the respondent therein-0. J. C. No. IOI of 1970 will also stand dismissed. The parties will bear their respective costs in this appeal also. M.L.A. Appeal allowed.

p. 965, margin D