Case Note & Summary
The matter arose from a challenge to an order of suspension passed against a civilian employee holding a civil post connected with defence. The employee was suspended on February 3, 1995, pending inquiry into grave charges and a criminal prosecution. The suspension was ordered under Rule 10(1) of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965. On February 9, 1995, the employee approached the Central Administrative Tribunal, Calcutta Bench, questioning the validity of the suspension order on the ground that the said Rules were incompetent and without jurisdiction for civilian employees in defence services. The employee relied on Union of India v. K.S. Subramanian, wherein a three-Judge Bench held that when Article 311(2) of the Constitution is excluded, the 1965 Rules cannot independently play any part because the rule-making power under Article 309 is subject to Article 311. The Tribunal rejected the contention, relying on later decisions of this Court in Union of India v. Inderjit Datta and Director General of Ordnance Services v. P.N. Malhotra. The Tribunal observed that Rule 3 of the 1965 Rules expressly applies to civilian government servants in Defence Service, and that suspension pending criminal prosecution, not departmental inquiry, was not illegal. The Tribunal also referred to the implied power of an employer to suspend an employee. The correctness of the Tribunal's judgment was questioned before the Supreme Court. The petitioner contended that if the Rules have no application, the Government had no power to suspend. The Additional Solicitor General for the Union Government submitted that K.S. Subramanian requires reconsideration, arguing that notwithstanding the non-applicability of Article 311(2), the 1965 Rules expressly apply to civilian employees in defence services, and no prohibition against their application can be inferred. The Supreme Court noted the conflict between the earlier three-Judge Bench decision and the later two decisions, and observed that the matter required an authoritative pronouncement. Since K.S. Subramanian was decided by a Bench of three Judges, the Court referred the matter to a Bench of three Judges, leaving it to that Bench to decide or refer to a larger Bench if appropriate. The Court therefore directed the matter to be placed before the Hon'ble Chief Justice for orders regarding posting before a Bench of three Judges.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Applicability of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 to Civilian Defence Employees - Rule 3, Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965; Articles 310(1), 311(2), Constitution of India - The core issue was whether civilian government servants in Defence Service are governed by the 1965 Rules despite exclusion of Article 311(2) protection - The order notes a conflict between K.S. Subramanian, which held that in the absence of Article 311(2) the Rules cannot independently fetter the pleasure doctrine under Article 310(1), and later decisions in Inderjit Datta and P.N. Malhotra, which held that following the Rules causes no prejudice to the employee - Held that the question requires an authoritative pronouncement and referred the matter to a larger Bench of three Judges (Paras 1-2). B) Service Law - Suspension Pending Criminal Prosecution - Rule 10(1), Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 - If the 1965 Rules are inapplicable to civilian defence employees, the Government's power to suspend may be incidental to the master-servant relationship, with the obligation to pay full salary and emoluments during suspension - The Court indicated such implied power but deferred determination to a larger Bench due to conflicting views and the request by the Additional Solicitor General for reconsideration of K.S. Subramanian - Held: matter referred to a Bench of three Judges for authoritative decision (Paras 1-2).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 apply to civilian government servants in Defence Service when Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India is excluded; and if the Rules are inapplicable, under what power the Government can suspend such an employee pending criminal prosecution.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court held that the question of applicability of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 to civilian employees in defence services required an authoritative pronouncement due to conflicting decisions. Observing that K.S. Subramanian was decided by a Bench of three Judges, the Court referred the matter to a Bench of three Judges for hearing, leaving it to that Bench to either decide the matter or refer it to a larger Bench if appropriate. The matter was directed to be placed before the Hon'ble Chief Justice for orders regarding posting before a Bench of three Judges.
Law Points
- The Central Civil Services (Classification
- Control and Appeal) Rules
- 1965 contain Rule 3 stating they apply to every government servant including civilian government servants in Defence Service
- Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India is excluded for civilian employees in defence service
- conflict exists between K.S. Subramanian holding the 1965 Rules cannot independently apply when Article 311(2) is excluded
- and later decisions in Inderjit Datta and P.N. Malhotra holding no prejudice arises from following the Rules
- the power to suspend may be incidental to the master-servant relationship
- matters involving conflict of precedents require authoritative pronouncement by a larger Bench.
