Holding

Initiation of disciplinary proceedings within 90 days satisfies Rule 9; service of the charge‑sheet is not a condition precedent, and evasion of service does not invalidate the suspension.

Summary

The State of Madhya Pradesh suspended Executive Engineer L.P. Tiwari on 24 April 1990 and framed a charge‑sheet on 5 July 1990, but the charge‑sheet was not served until after the 90‑day period prescribed by Rule 9 of the Madhya Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966 because the respondent deliberately avoided receipt. Tiwari challenged the suspension before the Madhya Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, arguing that the disciplinary proceedings were initiated after the 90‑day limit, rendering the suspension void. The Tribunal set aside the suspension. On appeal, the Supreme Court held that Rule 9 requires initiation of disciplinary proceedings within 90 days, not the service of the charge‑sheet, and that an employee’s evasion of service does not invalidate the suspension. Consequently, the Tribunal’s order was reversed and the suspension restored. The Court emphasized that allowing a delinquent officer to profit from avoiding service would defeat the purpose of the rule.

Issues considered

What is the effect of non‑service of a charge‑sheet within the 90‑day period prescribed by Rule 9 of the Madhya Pradesh Civil Services Rules?
Does an employee’s deliberate evasion of service render the suspension order illegal or void?
Can the Administrative Tribunal’s order be set aside despite the employee’s reinstatement to avoid contempt proceedings?

Legislation cited

Madhya Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966s. Rule 9

Subjects

service lawdisciplinary proceedingssuspensioncharge‑sheetRule 9Madhya Pradesh Civil Services Rulesadministrative tribunalevasion of serviceappeal

Judgment

STATE OF M.P. A
v.
SH. L.P. TIWARI

MAY 5, 1994
B
[K. RAMASWAMY AND N. VENKATACHALA, JJ.]

Service Law: Madhya Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Control
and Appeal) Rules, 1966 : Rule lf---Suspension-!nitiation of disciplinary
proceedings within a period of 90 days from the date of suspension
order-Non-service of charge-sheet within the period-Delinquent Official c
making himself scarce and evading service of charge sheet on him-Effect
of-Held; It does not per se render the disciplinary proceedings illegal.

Practice & Procedure : Interference with illegal orders-Any action
' taken in compliance of such orders or to avoid contempt proceedings-Not D
a justification to refuse to inteifere.
l

The appellant contemplated disciplinary proceedings against the
respondent, an Executive Engineer, and placed him under suspension by
its orders dated 24.4.1990 which was served on him on 25.9.1990. Charge-
sheet was framed on 5.7.90 and was sought to be served on the respondent
E
through the officers but he refused to accept the same on some pretext or
the other. However, the chargewsheet was served on him only after the
expiry of 90 days, which was the time-limit stipulated by Rule 9 of the
Madhya. Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal)
Rules, 1966. F

Respondent challenged the order of suspension, before the Ad·
ministrative Tribunal on the ground that the disciplinary proceedings
were initiated after the expiry of 90 days and therefore the suspension
order was void. The Tribunal accepted the plea of the Respondent and set G
aside the order of suspension. Hence this appeal.

The appellant-State contended that the Respondent made himself
scarce and successfully evaded the receipt of the charge-sheet till the expiry
of 90 days. H
921
922 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1994] 3 S.C.fl.

A Allowing the appeal, this Court

HELD :1.1. What is emphasised in rule 9 of the M.P. Civil Services
(Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966 is initiation of the
proceedings within the period of 90 days, and not effecting the service of
the articles of charge issued or caused to be issued when the government
B servant makes himself scarce. Non-service, therefore, per se does not
render the initiation of the disciplinary proceedings against the delinquent
officer illegal, after the expiry of 90 days. [928-D) +-'
1.2. The delinquent employee successfully evaded the receipt of
C charge sheet within the period prescribed under the rule and then claimed
that initiation of the proceedings or the order of suspension becomes
illegal or non est since the proceedings were not taken against him within
th period prescribed under the Rules. Allowing the deliliquent to put a
premium on successful avoidance of receipt of charge sheet and plead to
D his advantage, the making of service ineffectual, should never be conn·
tenanced. Hence, there is no need to give satisfactory explanation for every
day's delay in service of charge-sheet on the delinquent. The Tribunal bas
committed manifest gravous error of law in allowing the petition of the
Respondent. [928-E-F]

E D.DA. v. P.C. Khurana, [1993) 3 SCC 196, relied on.

2. A premium cannot be allowed to be put on avoidance, and the
directions of the Tribunal, which are found to be illegal, cannot be made
the basis to allow the respondent to remain in service when the disciplinary
authority had found that it was expedient to keep the respondent under
F suspension. Tht mere fai;l. that the respondent was reinstated to avoid
contempt proceedings or due compliance of the impugned order, cannot
be the reason nor a justification to refuse to interfere with the illegal order
passed by the Tribunal. [928-H, 929-A)

G CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 4421 of
1994.

From the Judgment and Order dated 27.8.92 of the Madhya Pradesh
Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur in 0.A. No.1056 of 1992.

H A.K. Singhvi and S.K. Agnihotri for the Appellant.
STATEOFM.P. v. LP. TIWARI 923

Raju Ramachandran Amitabh Verma and Ashok Mathur for the A
·'.><. Respondent.

The following Order of the Court was delivered :

Delay condoned. Leave granted.
B
The appellant had contemplated disciplinary proceedings against the
respondent and considered it expedient to keep the respondent under
suspension pending the said proceedings. By proceeding dated April 24,
_,>. 1990, the respondent was suspended and it was served on him on 25.9.1990.
A charge-sheet was framed against the respondent on July 5, 1990 and was C
sent to the Engmeer-in-Chief, at Bhopal for effecting its service who in his
letter dated November 8, 1990 requested the Chief Engineer (Central) at
Jabalpur to serve the charge-sheet on the respondent The latter in turn
endorsed it to the Suptdg. Engineer, Panna who debuted his head clerk to
serve the charge-sheet on the respondent. The endorsement made by the D
head clerk on December 21, 1990, reads thus:
• "The Head Clerk had gone to Panadukodi and met Shri Tiwari,
' Executive Engineer, and gave him the letters. But as informed by
the Head Clerk in writing that he refused to accept the said letters
on some pretext, the same are being sent to you in original". E

Thereafter, the service was effected after the expiry of 90 days. The
respondent challenged the order of suspension in the Administrative
Tribunal on the ground that the disciplinary proceedings were initiated
after the expiry of 90 days and that therefore, suspension was without
F
> jurisdiction and void. That plea was found favour with the Tribunal in 0.A.
-. No. 1056/92, which by its order dated August 27, 1992 set aside the order
of suspension. Thus, this appeal by special leave.

The appellant's contention is that the respondent having had
knowledge of the order of suspension and initiation of the proceedings, G
made himself scarce and evaded the receipt of the charge sheet and all
attempts made by the appellants, within the period of limitation to serve
the charge sheet proved futile. Having successfully evaded the receipt of
the charge sheet till the expiry of 90 days, the respondent approached the
..>-- Tribunal in 1992 and claimed that his suspension after the expiry of 90 days H
924 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1994]3 S.C.R.

A prescribed under rule 9 of the M.P. Civil Services (Classification, Control
and Appeal) Rules, 1966, for short the rules had become illegal and void,
;,;(
and had stood revoked. We find force in the contention. It is seen from
the letter addressed by the Chief Engineer, Jabalpur to the Govt. that the
respondent, the Executive Engineer had not given the address nor reported
B to the office of the Superintending Engineer as per the directions issued
by the Government and that his whereabouts were not known. It would
thus be clear that after having had knowledge of the suspension order the
respondent thwarted the attempt to serve the charge sheet against him and
thereby refused to receive it. He thus evaded to receive the charge sheet.
Rule 9 of the Rules provides thus :
'
j,.

c
"9(1) The appointing authority or any authority to which it is
subordinate or the disciplinary authority or any other authority
empowered in that behalf by the Governor by general or special
order, may place a government servant under suspension -
D
(a) where a disciplinary proceeding against him is con-
templated or is pending or 1

(b) where a case against him in respect of any criminal offence
is under investigation, inquiry or trial;
E
Provided that where the order of suspension is made by an
authority lower than the appointing authority, such authority shall
forthwith report to the appointing authority the circumstances in
which the order was made.
F
(2) A Government servant shall be deemed to have been placed
under suspension by an order of appointing authority -

(a) with effect from the date of his detention, if he is detained
in custody whether on a criminal charge or otherwise, for a period
G exceeding forty eight hours;

(b) with effect from the date of his conviction, if in the event
of conviction for an offence, he is sanctioned to a term of imprison-
ment exceeding forty eight hours and iS not forthwith dismissed or
H removed or compulsorily retired consequent to such conviction.
STATEOFM.P. v. LP. TIWARI 925

Explanation. - The period of forty eight hours n;ferred to in A
clause (b) of this sub-rule shall be computed from the commence-
ment of the imprisonment after the conviction and for this purpose,
intermittent periods of imprisonment if any, shall be taken into
account.

(2-a) Where a Govt. servant is placed under suspension under
B
clause (a) of sub-rule (1), the order of suspension shall contain the
reasons for making such order and where it proposed to hold an
enquiry against such Govt. servant under rule 14, a copy of articles
of charges, the statement of imputations of misconduct or mis-
behaviour and a list of documents and witnesses by which each c
article of charge is proposed to be sustained shall be issued or
caused to be issued by the disciplinary authority to such Govt. servant
as required by sub-rule (4) of rule 16 within a period of 45 days
from the date of order of suspension.
D
Provided that where the disciplinary authority is the State
Govt., the copy of charges and other documents mentioned above
shall be issued or caused to be issued to such Govt. servant within
a period of 90 days from the date of order of suspension.

(2-b) Where the disciplinary authority fails to issue to the Govt. E
servant, a copy of the charges and other document referred to in
sub-rule (2-a) within the period of 45 days, the disciplinary
authority shall,_before expiry of the said period, obtain orders in
writing of the State Govt. for extension of the said period of
suspension. F
• Provided that the period of suspension shall in no case be
" enhanced beyond as period of 90 days from the date of the order
of suspension.

(3) Where a penalty of dismissal, removal or compulsory retire- G
ment from service imposed upon a Govt. servant under suspension,
is set aside in appeal or rcvie\V under these rules and the same is
remitted for further inquiry or action or with any other directions,
the order of his suspension shall be deemed to have continued in
force on and from the date of the original order of dismissal, H
926 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1994] 3 S.C.R.

A removal or compulsory retirement and shall remain in force until
further orders.

(4) Where a penalty of dismissal, removal or compulsory retire-
ment from service imposed upon a Govt. Servant is set aside or
declared or rendered void in consequence of or by a decision of
B a court of law and the disciplinary authority, on a consideration of
the circumstances of the case, decides to hold a further inquiry
against him on the allegations on which the penalty of dismissal,
removal or rnmpulsory retirement was originally imposed, the
Govt. servant shall be deemed to have been placed under suspen-
...'
c sion by the appointing authority from the date of the original order
of dismissal, removal or compulsory retirement and shall continue
to remain under suspension until further orders.

5(a) An order of suspension made or deemed to have been
made under this rule, shall continue to remain iii force until it is
D
modified or revoked by the authority competent to do so.

Provided that the order of suspension shall stand revoked on
expiry of the period of forty five days from the date or order of
suspension in case of copy of charges and other documents
E referred to in sub-rule (2-a) are not issued to such Govt. servant
by the disciplinary authority (if it is not the State Govt.) without
obtaining the orders of the State Govt. for extension of the
period for issue of the said documents, as required under sub-rule
(2-b).
F
Provided further that the order of suspens10n shall stand
revoked on expiry of the period of 90 days from the date of order •
.(
of suspension. In case the copy of charges and other documents
referred to in sub-rule (2-a) arc not issued to such Govt. Servant."

G Rule 9 thus contemplates that the disciplinary authority or any
authority empowered by the Governor by a general or special order is
auth!.l; ·i;;ed to place the Govt. servant under suspension where disciplinary
proceedings against him is contemplated or is pending or where a case
againsL him in respect Of any criminal offence is under investigation inquiry
H or trial. The order of suspension shall contain the reasons for making such
STATEOFM.P. v. L.P. TIWARI 927

order and where it proposes to hold an enquir'' against him under Rule A
14, a copy of articles of the charges, statement of imputation of misconduct
'~
or misbehaviour and a list of documents and witnesses by which charges
are proposed to be sustained shall be issued or caused to be issued by the
disciplinary authority to such Govt. servant within a period of 45 days from
the date of order of suspension. By operation of the proviso to sub-rule
B
(2-a) where the disciplinary authority is the State Govt., the copy of charges
and other documents mentioned above shall be issued or caused to be
issued to such Govt. servant within a period of 90 days from the date of
order of suspension. The object appears to be that the competent authority
\
having placed delinquent officer under suspension, cannot sit over the case
without prompt follow up action of conducting an inquiry into the alleged
c
misconduct. The dereliction thereof entails the authority with denuding the
power to continue the officer under suspension, though the power of
enquiry subsists. It would be clear from proviso to rule 9(2-b) which says
that "the period of suspension shall in no case be continued beyond the
period of 90 days from the date of the order of suspension". It would thus D
., be clear that where disciplinary proceedings are pending or contemplated,
it is open to the appointing authority, disciplin.ary authority or authorised
•
~
officer to keep Govt. servant under suspension and have the articles of
charges together with the particulars mentioned hereinbefore "shall be
issued or caused to be issued" by the authority to such Govt. servant within E
the period mentioned hereinbefore. On its so issuing the order of snspen-
sion remains in force until revoked on reconsideration in terms of the rules
based on facts scenario or proceedings terminated by an order on merits.
It is thereby clear that service of the article of charge is not a condition
precedent. Putting it -in transmission within the period is sufficient com-
F
pliance. No doubt every endeavour has to be made to have the charge sheet
>
served on the delinquent but the delinquent who evades receipt of it,
cannot be allowed to take advantage of such evasion.

The Court in a recent judgment in D.DA. v. P.C. Khurana, [1993] 3
sec 196, considered the effect of a similar provision and held thus : G

"The meaning of the word 'issued' has to be gathered from the
context in which it is used. The decision to initiate disciplinary
proceedings cannot be subsequent to the issuance of the charge-
sheet, since issue of the charge-sheet is a consequence of the H
-'-
928 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1994] 3 S.C.R.

A decision to initiate disciplinary proceedings. The service of the
charge-sheet on the government servant follows the decision to
initiate disciplinary proceedings, and it does not precede or coin-
side with that decision. The delay, if any, in service of the charge-
shcet to the government servant, after ii: has been framed and
despatched, does not have the effect of delaying initiation of the
B
disciplinary proceedings, inasmuch as information to the govern-
ment servant of the charges framed against him, by service of the
charge-sheet, is not a part of the decision making process of the
authorities for initiating the disciplinary proceedings. The contrary
view would defeat the object by enabling the government servant,
if so inclined, to evade service and thereby frustrate the decision
and get promotion in spite of that decision."

Thus, it could be seen that what is emphasised in the rule is initiation of
the proceedings within the period of 90 days, and not effecting the service
D of the articles of charge issued or caused to be issued when the government
servant makes himself scarce. Non-service, therefore, per se does not
render the initiation of the disciplinary prqceedings against the delinquent
officer illegal, after the expiry of 90 days. As pointed out by this Court and
f
as found on the facts on hand that the delinquent employee successfully
E evaded the receipt of charge sheet within the period prescribed under the
rule and then claimed that initiation of the proceedings or the order of
suspension becomes illegal or non est since the proceedings were not taken
against him within the period prescribed under Rule 9 or the similar rule.
In other words, allowing the delinquent to put a premium on successful
avoidance of receipt of charge sheet and plead to his advantage, the making
F
of service ineffectual, should never be countenanced. Hence, there is no
need to give satisfactory explanation for every day's delay in service of
charge-sheet on the delinquent, as opined by the Tribunal. Under these
circumstances, we are clearly of the opinion that the Tribunal has com-
mitted manifest gravous error of Jaw allowing the petition.
G
It is contended by Mr. Raju Rarnachandran, the learned counsel for
the respondent, that pursuant to the order passed by the Tribunal, when
the respondent had been reinstated, such order does not call for inter-
ference. We find no justification to accede to his contention. A premium
H cannot be allowed to be put on avoidance and the directions of the
STATE OF M.P. v. LP. TIWARI 929

Tribunal which are found to be illegal, cannot be made the basis to allow A
the respondent to remain in service when the disciplinary authority had
found that it was expedient to keep the respondent under suspension. The
mere fact that the respondent was reinstated to avoid contempt proceed-
ings or due compliance of the impugned order cannot be the reason, nor
a justification for us to refuse to interfere with illegal order passed by the
B
Tribunal. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. The order of the Tribunal is
set aside and the order of the Government is restored. But is the
circumstances we order no costs.

G.N. Appeal allowed.