R P KAPUR Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner, Shri R. P. Kapur, was recruited to the Indian Civil Service in 1939 and as such became subject to certain rules framed by the Secretary of state for India. He continued to serve in that capacity till our Constitution was framed. Article 314 of the Constitution guaranteed to him, as to other members of the Indian Civil Service, "the same conditions of service as respects remuneration, leave and pension" as in force immediately before the Constitution and also guaranteed "the same rights as respects disciplinary matters or rights similar thereto as changed circumstances may permit". In 1959, the petitioner was posted as Commissioner of the Patiala Division in the Punjab State. On the 18th July 1959 the Governor of Punjab ordered the immediate suspension of the petitioner and the reason mentioned was that a criminal case was pending against him. His heartquarters were fixed at Karnal and he was allowed certain subsistence allowance for the period of suspension. It is to challenge that order of suspension that the present petition has been filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the constitution, and, although it was filed in February, 1962, more than two and a half years after the impugned order, no serious objection to it on the ground of delay has been taken.

(2.) THE petitioner points out that prior to 1955 the service rules governing him expressly mentioned 'suspension' as one of the penalties that could be lawfully imposed on a member of the Service and he had under fill rules a right of appeal against any penalty, but that in 1955 the Union Government framed the All India services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules under which 'suspension' was removed from the list of penalties, although even under the new rules a member of the Service could still be suspended. The petitioner's contention, is that his conditions of service as regard disciplinary matters or rights similar thereto have been altered to his disadvantage and there has been a violation of the constitutional guarantee contained in Article 314 of the Constitution. Further, he con-tends that although under the new rules in force since 1955 'suspension' Is not called a penalty against which he can appeal, it is in substance still a penalty and it has teen visited on him unlawfully. To appreciate the argument in support of these contentions, it is necessary to examine the rules in force immediately before the Constitution and then to ascertain whether any change detrimental to the petitioner has been brought about by the new rules. It is, of course, common ground that if in fact any alteration in the rules touching disciplinary matters has been made and it is detrimental to the petitioner's rights, then it would be a violation of Article 314 of the Constitution and consequently unlawful.

(3.) UNDER the old rules 'suspension' was one of the penalties that could, like other penalties, are imposed on a member of the Service for good and sufficient reason. Rule 49 of the Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1930, which previously governed the petitioner, mentioned this. Such penalty like other penalties was, however, intended to be imposed only after the competent authority had come to a conclusion that the civil servant concerned was guilty of some act or omission requiring the imposition of a penalty. In the new rules, which now govern the petitioner, called the All-India Services (Discipline and Appeal)Rules, 1955, this particular penalty, that is, 'suspension' has been taken out of the category of penalties mentioned in Rule 3 of those rules, so that at present no member of the Service can be merely suspended if he is to be punished for any act or omission. Rule 7 of the Rules, however, provides that a member of the service may be suspended while disciplinary proceedings are pending against him and the contingencies mentioned are two : -