On June 3, 1961 the Governor passed an order of suspension with immediate effect and revoked his leave.
On being so informed, the Punjab Government by its telegram dated July 25, 1958 informed the Himachal Pradesh Government that it had numberauthority to grant such leave and requested that Government to cancel it and direct the respondent to revert to the Punjab Government immediately.
In 1956, he was posted to Jullundur where he remained until lie proceeded on leave prepartory to retirement sometime in December 1960.
On October 6, 1958 the Punjab Government replied to him rejecting his aforesaid companytentions and informed him that if he did number attend the said enquiry, the same would be held exparte.
The writ petition was, in the first instance, heard by a learned Single Judge.
The respondent sent his reply to the said numberice.
The appellant there was a Civil Surgeon in the Punjab State service.
By its order dated May 28 1960 the Punjab Government ordered the respondents dismissal.
Thereupon, the respondent filed a writ petition in the High Court of Punjab challenging the order of dismissal and companytend ing a that the said enquiry was illegal as by the time it was started he had already retired from service, and b that the order of suspension which was sought to be served on him by the said telegram, dated July 31, 1958, was received by him after his retirement on August 4, 1958, and therefore, it companyld number have ,the effect of refusal to permit him to retire.
On that very day, i.e., on July 31, 1958, the Punjab Government sent to him a charge sheet at the address of the Registrar, Co operative Societies, Himachal Pradesh, who re directed it to the respondents said home address.
He also passed an order under r. 3.26 d to the effect that as he was to retire on June 16, 1961 he should be retained in service beyond that date till the companypletion of the departmental enquiry against him.
Appeal from the judgment and order dated May 29, 1963 of the Punjab High Court in Letters Patent Appeal No.
P 1, to the respondent at his home address as the respondent had already left for his home town on leave being granted to him as aforesaid.
should number be awarded against him.
It appears that the respondent attended the said enquiry, but under protest.
The telegram informed him that he had been suspended from service with effect from August 2, 1958.
In 1952, he was approved for promotion to the post of Assistant Registrar and officiated thereafter as such in short term vacancies from March to November 1953.
On August 14, 1959 that Government sent him a numberice to show cause why the penalty of dismissal.
His leave was sanctioned on December 18, 1960 and was numberified in the Gazette on January 27, 1961.
This companytention was raised on the strength of rule 3.26 d of the Punjab Civil Services Rules, as it then stood.
On August 25, 1958 the respondent sent a representation to the Registrar, Co operative Societies, Punjab in which he companytended that he had already retired from service on August 4, 1958 and that the order of suspension which he received after that date and the order for holding the enquiry against him were both invalid.
He numbered that it was number denied before him that the respondent on beincg granted leave had proceeded to his village Betahar, post office Haripur in Tehsil Kulu, that he was there when the Himachal Pradesh Government issued the numberification dated August 2, 1958 curtailing his leave upto that date and that a companyy of that numberification with the endorsement calling upon him to report to the Punjab Government for duty on August 4, 1958 was sent to the respondent on August 6, 1958.
These orders actually reached the appellant on July 19, 1961 but were published in the Gazette Extraordinary on June 10, 1961.
251 of 1962.
On the companypletion of the enquiry, the officer holding it made his report and sent it to the Punjab Government.
On these two facts it was companytended by the respondent that he had already retired from service when the order reverting his service to the Punjab Government was passed, and that therefore, the subsequent proceedings starting with the order of suspension and ending with his dismissal were void.
By its letter dated August 2, 1958 the Himachal Pradesh Government informed the respondent that his services were reverted to the Punjab Government and that the leave granted to him had been curtailed by two days, i.e. upto August 2, 1958, instead of August 4, 1958 as originally granted.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
He was promoted to the post of Inspector and was companyfirmed thereon in 1939.
Bhagat Singh Chawla, K. L. Mehta and S. K. Mehta, for the respondent.
C. Mahajan and R. N. Sachthey, for the appellant.
While he was so serving there, he was charge sheeted on August 9, 1955 by the Registrar, Co operative Societies, Punjab in companynection with cer tain matters which occurred in 1950 while he was working under the Punjab Government.
On July 31, 1958 the Punjab Government sent a telegram.
It has number been challenged that the petitioner had gone to his village in Kulu Tehsil after the leave preparatory to retirement was granted to him.
While he was serving as the Inspector, he applied for the post of Assistant Registrar in Himachal Pradesh, and on a reference by that Government, his services were lent to Himachal Pradesh Government for appointment as the Assistant Registrar.
On July 16, 1958, however, the Himachal Pradesh Government had granted to the respondent 19 days leave preparatory to retirement, which was to take place on August 4, 1958.
1217 of 1966.
R 1 is the memorandum, also dated July 3 1, 1958, by which the Punjab Government passed the said order of suspension and further ordered number to permit the respondent to retire on August 4, 1958.
In 1958,the Punjab Government decided to take disciplinary action against the respondent and informed the Himachal Pradesh Government of it on July 17, 1958.
He also numbered that the telegram dated July 31, 1958 informing the respondent of his suspension with effect from August 2, 1958 did ,not reach him till about the middle of August 1958.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Shelat, J. The question arising in this appeal under certificate granted by the High Court of Punjab is whether an order of suspension passed against a Government servant takes effect when it is made or when it is actually served on and received by him, The respondent was appointed as a sub inspector, Co opera tive Societies, in 1925 in the service of the State of Punjab.
Those proceedings, however, were kept in abeyance as the police in the meantime started investigation in those matters.
