The appellant filed an appeal to the Sessions Court, but his appeal was dismissed.
On April 11, 1953 the appellant brought the present suit against the respondent praying for a declaration that the order of suspension was illegal and inoperative in law and the appellant companytinued in service as though numberorder for suspension had been passed.
Before the companyclusion of the departmental inquiry and while that inquiry was going on the appellant gave a numberice to the respondent under s. 80 of the Civil Procedure Code.
The appellant claimed remuneration and allowances with usual increments from the date of his suspension till the date of his reinstatement.
On March 14, 1952, the appellant made a representation to the Government praying that he should be reinstated in service.
S. 97/189/A dated 16th February, 1950, you are informed that you are suspended pending further orders with effect from the afternoon of 18th instant.
In pursuance of the directions received by him from the Surgeon General, the Civil Surgeon, Ahmedabad, issued the following office order and sent it to the appellant Under orders from the Surgeon General, with the Government of Bombay, companyveyed in his Memorandum No.
The Government, however, applied to the High Court for leave to appeal to this Court against the decision if the High Court and on the said application being rejected, the Government applied to this Court for special leave to appeal.
442 of 1965.
The Government also directed that the appellant should be paid in addition Rs.
Thereafter, the appellant took the matter in revision to the Bombay High Court.
Appeal from the judgment and decree dated August 10, 1961 of the Bombay High Court in Appeal No.
158 13 0 per mensem from April 1, 1950 to February 18, 1951 and at Rs.
For reasons which are number apparent the departmental inquiry was delayed and ultimately an order of dismissal was made against the appellant on February 11, 1960.
R. Gokhate, P. N. Duda, and J. B. Dadachanji, for the appellant.
14/ as house rent allowance during the entire period of suspension.
M. Seervai, Advocate General for the State of Maharashtra, Gopalakrishnan and R. N. Sachthey, for the respondent.
He requested the Government that in the circumstances mentioned in the Sub Inspectors report orders may be issued for placing the appellant under suspension.
He also granted a decree directing the respondent to pay to the appellant Rs.
35/ per mensem as dearness allowance and Rs.
The Civil Surgeon, Ahmedabad was appointed Inquiry Officer and he was asked to companyplete the inquiry within three months and submit his report to the Government through the Surgeon General.
1000/ .
He granted to the appellant a declaration that the order of suspension was illegal and inoperative in law and the appellant companytinued to be on duty till February 11, 1960 as though numberorder of suspension had been made.
On May 6, 1950 sanction was given for the prosecution of the appellant under s. 161, Indian Penal Code.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
The Surgeon General forwarded the report of Sub Inspector, Mr. Rathod as well as the representation of the appellant to the State Government by his letter dated February 1, 1950.
The appellant was a member of the Bombay Medical Service, Class 11 and as such was an employee of the State of Maharashtra.
153 5 0 per mensem from the date of his suspension February 19, 1950 to March 31, 1950, at Rs.
23 of 1960.
By a letter dated February 13, 1950, the Deputy Secretary to the Government informed the Surgeon General that the appellant should be suspended with immediate effect pending further orders The Surgeon General thereafter issued an order to the Civil Surgeon, Ahmedabad dated February 16, 1950 that the appellant should be placed under suspension pending further orders from the date of the receipt of the memorandum.
The respondent companytroverted the allegations made in the plaint and asserted that the suspension of the appellant was number illegal.
Shah, J. of the Bombay High Court before whom the suit was tried held that the appellant was entitled to salary and allowances upto the date when he was dismissed i.e., February 11, 1960.
and the companyt of the suit.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Ramaswami, J. This appeal is brought, by certificate, from judgment of the Bombay High Court dated August 10, 1961 by which the appeal of the respondent against the judgment of M. Shah, J. of that High Court was allowed and the suit of the appellant was dismissed.
51,135.28 with interest on Rs.
On January 19, 1950, one Nabimahomed companyplained to Mr. Rathod, Sub Inspector of Police Anti Corruption Branch, Ahmedabad, implicated by the Anti Corruption Branch of the Police and asking him to companysider the representation before giving his sanction for prosecution of the appellant and before making an order of suspension.
On August 21, 1950 the Government directed that the appellant should be allowed subsistence allowance at Rs.
This Court rejected the application on October 13, 1952.
In 1943, the appellant was posted at the Civil Hospital, Ahmedabad and on February 18, 1950 he was in charge of the Medico Legal Section of that hospital.
On February 20, 1953 the Government directed that a departmental enquiry should be held against the appellant.
His recommendation was approved by the Minister for Health and by the Chief Minister.
The respondent appealed against the judgment of the trial Judge.
On November 27, 1952 the Government issued another order in regard to the payment of subsistence allowance to the appellant.
119 2 0 per mensem from February 19, 1951 onwards.
43,223/ at the rate of 4 per cent p.a.
You should hand over your charge to Mr. S. S. Doctor, B.M.S. Class 11 at this hospital.
The revision application was allowed and the companyviction and sentence passed against the appellant were set aside.
