C A DSOUZA Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, who was removed from service, has challenged the various orders passed in regard to him, on the following grounds :

(2.) On the first two grounds, I agree with the opinion expressed by my learned brother Golvalker, J. in paragraphs 7 and 8 of the order proposed by him.

(3.) In regard to the third ground, I am of opinion that the petitioner has not been punished more than once. It is true that, on 30 November 1950, the General Officer Commanding, Home Guards, passed an order suspending the petitioner and directing his confinement to barracks but, as admitted by the petitioner himself, it was cancelled soon afterwards and thereupon, on the same day, he submitted his resignation which he subsequently withdrew. Since this was not argued to be a punishment, nothing further need be said about it. It was, however, urged that the suspension from 30 November 1950 to 11 June 1956 should itself be regarded as a separate punishment within, the meaning of Rule 12 of the Home Guards Rules, 1947. By an order of the State Government dated 21 December 1950, the petitioner was suspended with effect from 30 November 1950 pending the result of the departmental enquiry ordered against him. Again, when the earlier order of removal of the petitioner from service dated 26 June 1951 was set aside by the High Court on 31 August 1954, the State Government, by a fresh, order dated 24 September 1954, decided to continue him "under suspension with effect from 30th November 1950 to enable them to hold a proper enquiry against him". The order of suspension in this case was passed in order to enable a proper departmental enquiry to be held against the petitioner. It was not a substantive punishment inflicted after he was adjudged to be guilty of a fault. It was like the one in the Supreme Court case of Om Prakash Gupta v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 1955-2 SCR 391 : ((S) AIR 1955 SC 600) where their Lordships observed : "The order of suspension made against the appellant was clearly one made pending an enquiry. It certainly was not a penalty imposed after an enquiry.". That, being so, the contention that the petitioner was punished twice for the same fault is without any basis.