Union Of INDIA vs. Deepak Niranjan Nath Pandit

Having heard learned ASG for the Petitioners and learned counsel for the OP, and having perused the Petition papers keeping in view the Written Submissions, as also relevant of the Rulings cited at the Bar, we grant partial indulgence in the matter as under and for the following reasons:

The vehement submission of learned ASG that the suspension can overstay the retirement of delinquent employee is bit difficult to countenance and reasons for this are not far to seek: Firstly, suspension ordinarily is resorted to in contemplation or pending a Disciplinary Enquiry or a Criminal Proceeding against an employee so that no prejudice is caused to the Public Administration. Justice M. Rama Jois, in his Services Under the State, Indian Law Institute, 2007 at Page.625, opines as under: “The object of placing a civil servant under suspension is to keep him away from a position where he can interfere with the conduct of the enquiry or tamper with documentary or oral evidence in any manner or where, having regard to the nature of the charges against him, it is felt that it would be unsafe to continue to vest in him the powers of his post. It is for the disciplinary or the competent authority to consider all the facts and circumstances of the case and in its discretion, to place a civil servant under suspension.”

The above being said, learned ASG is right in his submission to the extent that merely because the suspension is revoked or comes to an end because of superannuation of the delinquent employee under suspension, the Disciplinary Proceedings do not abate. Further, the statutory Conduct & Discipline Rules can provide for initiation of Disciplinary Proceedings even after retirement, of course subject to certain conditions & limitations. A limited jural relationship to the extent of holding such proceedings would subsist vide State of Punjab v. Justice S. Dewan, AIR 1997 SC 2388. Therefore, Petitioners need not have the apprehension that the impugned order of the Tribunal would foreclose the Disciplinary Proceedings that are pending or contemplated. To put it differently, the Disciplinary Proceedings do not abate on retirement. Similarly, the authority to initiate Disciplinary Proceeding post retirement also does not, if the Rules do provide

We are told at the Bar that the OP has filed OA No.2060/2025 laying challenge to the very initiation of Disciplinary Proceedings and for the quashment of Charge Memo. The same is stated to be pending before the Tribunal. There is no dispute about the payment of subsistence allowance during the suspension period. The vehement submission of learned counsel for OP that under the provisions of Fundamental Rule 54-B, unless there is an order under sub-Rule-1, matter would not travel to sub-Rule-6 of the said F.R. and therefore, his client is entitled to have the suspension treated as on duty, appears to be attractive at the first blush. Our decision in W.P.(C) No.37720 of 2023 between Sandeep Yadav v. UOI, disposed off on 07.04.2026, does not much come to the aid of OP, inasmuch as it was a case of revocation of suspension by invoking the provisions of F.R. 54-B as distinguished from the abatement of suspension on superannuation. What should happen to such suspension period when the Disciplinary Proceedings are pending is a vexed question that needs to be answered taking into account a host of factors. It hardly needs to be stated that a decision is an authority for the proposition laid down in a particular fact matrix of a case and not for all that which would logically follow from what has been so laid down said Lord Halsbury in Quinn v. Leathem, [1901] AC 495 (HL). This nuance of the matter has been lost sight of by the Tribunal. No useful purpose would be served by remanding the matter. We are of the considered view that this aspect of the matter can be examined by the Tribunal in pending OA No.2060/2025. In that connection, all contentions of the parties are kept open.