# D. D. SURI v. A. K. BARREN & ORS

- **Citation:** [1976] 3 S.C.R. 350
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1976-02-06
- **Case number:** Civil Appeal No. 292 of 1973
- **Bench:** V. R. Krishna Iyer, A. C. Gupta, N. L. Untwalia
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/d-d-suri-v-a-k-barren-ors-6814
- **Pages:** 6

## Headnote

Prerention of Corruption Act, 1947-Sec. 5(2)-All India Services (Disci·
pline and Appeal) Rules 1955-Rule 7(3)-Suspension order without following
ad1ninislrative instructions whether valid-Meaning of investigation-lnquiry
and trial-Whetller suspension co1nes to an end on retiren1ent.
The appellant was an erstwhile member of the Indian Administrative Service
in the cadre of the· State of Orissa.
At the relevant time in the year 1967,
he \Vas serving as Commissioner of Land Reforms, Orissa. According to the
appellant he had disputes, differences and animosity with respondent No. 1,
the Chief Secretary to the Government of -Orissa and respondent No. 2 who
was at . the relevant time Director of Vigilance and Additional Secretary to
the Government of Orissa. The First Information Report was l~g1~d again~ t
the appellant under s. 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1_947, on
24·11-1967. The appellant's house was searched on 27·11-1967. An order_of
suspension \Vas made against the appellant by the Government of Orissa 'on
28-11-1967 under rule 7(3) of the All India Services (Discipline and Appeal)
Rules, 1955.
The Writ Petition file<l by the appellant against his order of
suspension and investigation was dismissed by the High Court in lirnine.
This
Court allowed an appeal filed by special leave by the appellant against the
High Court judgment and directed the High Court to admit and dispose of the
petition in accordance with law.
The State Government approached the Central Government to accord
sanctiori for prosecution of the appellant. In spite of reminders, the Central
Government neither accorded the sanction nor refused it. Appellant was compu '.-
s~1rily retired by the Gov~rnment in 1971.
Thereafter, charge-sheet was submitted against him in the Court of the Special Judge, Sambalpur. The trial
concluded but becaus~ of the stay order passed by this Court judgn1ent could
not be delivered. Against the order of the compulsory retirement, the appe11ant
filed a writ petition in the Delhi High Court which was dismissed by a learned
single Judge and against which a Letters Patent appeal is pending. 'rhe Orissa
High Court dismissed the writ petition of the appellant on the ground of it
having become inftuctuous since the appellant was no longer in suspension since
he \Vas compulsorily retired. The High Court also did not think it necessary
to examine the legality of the investigation against the appeliant as chargesheet had already been submitted.
·
In an appeal by special leave the appellant contended :
The suspension order may be quashed on the following grounds :
(1) It was passed without follov;iing the various Governmental instructions on the point.
(2) The order \Vas in violation of rule 7 (3).
(3) The order was malafide.
HELD : ( 1) It is true that all the instructions contained in the circulars
issued by the Central Government do not seem to have been strictly followed.
That would, however, not invalidate or nullify the order of suspension made
under rule 7 (3). In dealing with the cases of high officers of the Administrative Service care ought to have been taken to follow the instructions as far as
possible.
On the facts of the present case. however. failure to follow
the
instructions fully~ does not render the order of suspension per se invalid. [353GHl
(2) Under rule 7 (3) a member of the Service in respect of or against whom
an investigation, enquiry or trial relating to a criminal charge is pending,
may at the discretion of the Government be placed under suspension. The
t
•
(
•
•
D. D. SURI v. A. K. BARREN (Untwalia, !.)
35;
expression in\'estigation. enquiry and trial are well known in the realn1 of the
criminal J~w under the Criminal Procedure Code.
In the present cas~, the
r·irst Information Report was lodged and the search warra~ts were. issued
before the sust'fension orders were passed.
Most of the .allegations. against t~e
appellant \\'ere in relation to his alle~ed acts of corruption. a~d misuse o[ his
official

## Text

A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
350
D. D. SURI
v.
A. K. BARREN & ORS.
February 6, 1976
[V. R. KRISHNA IYER, A. C. GUPTA AND N. L. UNTWALIA, JJ.]
Prerention of Corruption Act, 1947-Sec. 5(2)-All India Services (Disci·
pline and Appeal) Rules 1955-Rule 7(3)-Suspension order without following
ad1ninislrative instructions whether valid-Meaning of investigation-lnquiry
and trial-Whetller suspension co1nes to an end on retiren1ent.
The appellant was an erstwhile member of the Indian Administrative Service
in the cadre of the· State of Orissa.
At the relevant time in the year 1967,
he \Vas serving as Commissioner of Land Reforms, Orissa. According to the
appellant he had disputes, differences and animosity with respondent No. 1,
the Chief Secretary to the Government of -Orissa and respondent No. 2 who
was at . the relevant time Director of Vigilance and Additional Secretary to
the Government of Orissa. The First Information Report was l~g1~d again~ t
the appellant under s. 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1_947, on
24·11-1967. The appellant's house was searched on 27·11-1967. An order_of
suspension \Vas made against the appellant by the Government of Orissa 'on
28-11-1967 under rule 7(3) of the All India Services (Discipline and Appeal)
Rules, 1955.
The Writ Petition file<l by the appellant against his order of
suspension and investigation was dismissed by the High Court in lirnine.
This
Court allowed an appeal filed by special leave by the appellant against the
High Court judgment and directed the High Court to admit and dispose of the
petition in accordance with law.
The State Government approached the Central Government to accord
sanctiori for prosecution of the appellant. In spite of reminders, the Central
Government neither accorded the sanction nor refused it. Appellant was compu '.-
s~1rily retired by the Gov~rnment in 1971.
Thereafter, charge-sheet was submitted against him in the Court of the Special Judge, Sambalpur. The trial
concluded but becaus~ of the stay order passed by this Court judgn1ent could
not be delivered. Against the order of the compulsory retirement, the appe11ant
filed a writ petition in the Delhi High Court which was dismissed by a learned
single Judge and against which a Letters Patent appeal is pending. 'rhe Orissa
High Court dismissed the writ petition of the appellant on the ground of it
having become inftuctuous since the appellant was no longer in suspension since
he \Vas compulsorily retired. The High Court also did not think it necessary
to examine the legality of the investigation against the appeliant as chargesheet had already been submitted.
·
In an appeal by special leave the appellant contended :
The suspension order may be quashed on the following grounds :
(1) It was passed without follov;iing the various Governmental instructions on the point.
(2) The order \Vas in violation of rule 7 (3).
(3) The order was malafide.
HELD : ( 1) It is true that all the instructions contained in the circulars
issued by the Central Government do not seem to have been strictly followed.
That would, however, not invalidate or nullify the order of suspension made
under rule 7 (3). In dealing with the cases of high officers of the Administrative Service care ought to have been taken to follow the instructions as far as
possible.
On the facts of the present case. however. failure to follow
the
instructions fully~ does not render the order of suspension per se invalid. [353GHl
(2) Under rule 7 (3) a member of the Service in respect of or against whom
an investigation, enquiry or trial relating to a criminal charge is pending,
may at the discretion of the Government be placed under suspension. The
t
•
(
•
•
D. D. SURI v. A. K. BARREN (Untwalia, !.)
35;
expression in\'estigation. enquiry and trial are well known in the realn1 of the
criminal J~w under the Criminal Procedure Code.
In the present cas~, the
r·irst Information Report was lodged and the search warra~ts were. issued
before the sust'fension orders were passed.
Most of the .allegations. against t~e
appellant \\'ere in relation to his alle~ed acts of corruption. a~d misuse o[ his
official position.
Whether the allegations are true or false 1s irrelevant. Order
under rule 7<)) was, therefore, legal and valid.
[354A-E]
A
(3) The suspension order came to an end by the compulsory retirement of
B
the appellant.
1\fter retirement from servic~ ~e could no longer be dee~ed
to be under susriension.
Since we are remitting the case back to the Hrgh
Co~irt we permit the appellant to raise the question of his salary and emoluments during the suspension period th be raised in the High Court. The counsel for the appellant, however, assured this Court that if .the appellant would
be exonera',ed of the charges levelled against him and acquitted in the criminal
proceedings the State Governn1ent would pay him his full pay and allowances
for the periDd of suspension.
[354G-H, 3558-C]
(4) \Ve do not think it advisable to decide the point of malafide in the
C
absence of the judgment in the criminal cases.
Since the two matters are so
interwoven and interconnected that !t \vould be exoedient for the High Court
to decide this issue after the Judgment is delivered in the criminal trial.
[3550-E]
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 292 of 1973.
(Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated the
0
25-4-1972 of the Orissa Hig_h Court of Judicature at Cuttack in
0.J.C. No. 82 of 1968).
S. N. Andley and A. Subbarao for the appellant.
M. C. Blumdare and B. Parthasarathi for respondent No. 3.
M/s. S. N. Prasad and Girish Chandra for respondent No. 4.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
E
UNTWALIA, J.-The appellant in this appeal by special leave
is
Shri D. D. Suri-an erstwhile member of the Indian Administrative
Service in the cadre of the State of Orissa.-
Shri A. K. Barren, I.A.S.
the Chief Secretary to the Government of Orissa at the relevant time
was impleaded as respondent no. l. He died during the pendency of
this appeal.
Therefore, his name is directed to be expunged.
For
F
the sake of convenience, however, he will be referred to hereinafter in
this judgment as respondent no. l. Shri S. K. Ghosh, l.P .S. respondent no. 2 was at the relevam time Director of Vigilance and Additional Secretary to the Government of Orissa in the Political arid Services Department.
He has since retired and no notice of this appeal
could be served on him.
Even so the appeal proceeded to hearing as
for the disposal of this appeal, his appearance was n6t necessary. The
G
State of, Orissa is respondent no. 3, and the Government of India is
respondent number 4.
Respondents 5 and 7 are other officers of the
Government of Orissa.
It is an unfortunate protracted litigation with a chequered history.
Yet we do not find it possible to bring it to conclusion by onr judgment.
The appellant was appointed to the Indian Administrative Service
and joined as an Additional District Magistrate in the State of Orissa
in November, 1950.
According to hiS'case dne to some actions which
he took against some big political persons, he incurred their displeasure
H
A
B
c
D
F
G
H
352
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(1976] 3 S.C.R.
in the year 1952.
Sometime after he came on deputation to the centre but went back to Orissa in April, 1965. At the relevant time in
the year 1967 he was serving as Commissioner of
Land Reforms,
Orissa.
According to his case he had disputes, differences and · animosity with respondent no. 1 and later with respondent no. 2 also.
The appellant by stating very many facts, which are not necessary to
be enumerated in this judgment endeavoured to make out a case
of
male fides against respondents l and 2 and asserted that he was put
to trouble and unwarranted and illegal actions were taken against him
by or at the instance of respondents 1 and 2.
A First Information Report was lodged and Sambalpur Vigilance
P.S. Case No. 23/1967 was instituted against the appellant on November 24, 1967 under section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act,
194 7.
An application for search warrant was made before the Additional District Magistrate, Sambalpur on the same date i.e. 24-11-1967
and a search warrant was issued.
The appellant's house at Cuttack
was searched on and after 27-11-1967.
An order of suspension was
made against the appellant by the Government of Orissa on the 28th
November, 1967 under Rule 7(3) of the All India Services
(Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1955-hereinafter referred to as the Rules.
The appellant filed a writ petition (OJC 8211968) in the Orissa High
Court in January, 1968 to challenge the order of suspension and the
investigation made and proceeded against him.
The writ application
was dismissed by the Orissa High Court in limine.
Civil Appeal No.
679 /70 filed by special leave against the order of the OriSsa High
Court was allowed by this Court on 22-10-1970.
The writ application was directed to be admitted and disposed of in accordance with
law.
Certain subsequent developments and events are necessary to be
noted.
The State Government moved the Central Government on
November 23, 1968 after stating· the facts in detail to accord sanction
for prosecution of the appellant as the materials collected during investigation revealed a prima facie case in relation to the charges of corruption and misuse of his official position by the appellant.
In spite
of reminders the Central Government rieitber accorded sanction for tbe
prosecution of the appellant nor refused it.
Without sanction of the
Central Government no Charge-Sheet could be submitted against· the
appellant for his prosecution so long he remained in government service.
It seems, however, that the appellant was compulsorilv retired
by the appropriate government on June 9,
1971. Thereafter on
November 8, 1971 Charge-Sheet was submitted against him in the
Court of the Special Judge, Sambalpur.
In Transfer Petition No.
2/73 this Court transferred the case to the file of another Special
Judge.
On the splitting up of the original case the trial of several
cases proceeded against the appellant in the Court of the Special Judge.
The trial concluded but because of the stay order passed by this Court,
judgment could not be delivered until the disposal of this appeal and
LPA 3/73 pending in the Delhi High Court.
Against the order of
compulsory retirement, the appellant fifed a wrii petition in the Delhi
\
t
•
t
\
D. D. SURI v. A. K. BARREN (Untwalia, J.)
353
High Court.
It was dismissed by a learned single Judge on NovemA
ber 16, 1972.
LPA 3/73 is directed against the said order of dismissal.
A Bench of the Orissa High Court by its order :lated
chc 25th
April, 1972, the order under appeal, has again dismissed the writ petition (OJC 82/1968) as being infructuous. It has taken the
view
that since the appellant has already retired from service he is no longer
B
under suspension.
Therefore, the legality of the suspension order is
not necessary to be examined.
Nor did the High Court think it necessary t_o examine the legality of ilie investigation against the appellant
as Charge-Sheet had _already been submitted.
Mr. S. N. Andley, learned counsel for the appellant asked us to
quash the suspension order and strenously urged the following three
grounds :
(I) That it was passed without taking the various preliminary steps of preliminary enquiry or investigation
as was necessary to be done in view of the various
governmental instructions.
(2) That the order was not warranted by and
was
in
violation of Rule 7 (3) of the Rules.
( 3) That the charges levelled against the appellant were
all baseless, frivolous and false.
They were levelled
and the suspension order was made mala fide.
In support of the first submission our attention was drawn to the
various executive instructions issued by the Central Government as
also the State Government of Orissa to show as to how and in what
manner preliminary steps had to be taken and enquiry made by the
governmental authorities concerned before putting a government ser·
vant and especially a member of the Administrative Service under suspension.
Counsel submitted that nothing was done in
accordance
with those instructions before the lodging of the First Information
Report on November 24, 1967. The action was taken male fide in
all haste without observing the requirements of the law as contained
in the executive instructions.
On the other hand, Mr. M. C.
Bhandare, counsel for the Government of Orissa pointed out that the Vigilance Department of the State Government had made preliminary
enquiries and then taken action. We do not consider it necessary to
discuss in any detail or record any definite finding one way or the
other in respect of this bone of contention between the parties.
We
may only observe that all instructions contained in the various letters
and circulars of the Central Government do not seem to
have been
strictly followed.
But that will not invalidate or nullify the order of
suspension made under Rule 7(3) of the Rules.
In dealing with the.
cases of high officers of the Administrative Service, care ought to have
been taken to follow the instructions as far as possible.
Yet on the
facts of this case we are not prepared to hold that failure to follow the
instructions fully, per-se, made the order of suspension invalid.
c
D
E
F
G
H
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
35 4
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(1976] 3 S.C.R.
Sub-rule 1 of Rule 7 of the Rules provides for the placing under
suspension a member of the service against whom any
disciplinary
proceedmg has been initiated.
Under that sub-rule without the initiation of the disciplinary proceeding an order of suspension could not be
made.
Under sub-rule 2 a member of the service who is detained in
official custody for a period longer than 48 hours is to be deemed to
have been suspended by the government concerned.
We shall now
read sub-rule 3 of Rule 7.
·'A member of the Service in respect of, or against whom.
an investigation, inquiry, or trial relating to a criminal charge
is pending, may, at the discretion of the Govermnent under
which he is serving, be placed under suspension until the termination of all proceedings relating to that charge, if the
charge is connected with his position as a Government servant or is likely to embarrass him in the discharge of his
duties or involves _moral turpitude."
Under the sub-rule aforesaid it is clear that a member of the service
can be placed under suspension if against him an investigation, inquiry
or trial relating to criminal cha~ges is
pending.
The
expression
'investigation', 'inquiry', or 'trial' are we11-kno\vn in the realm of the
criminal Jaw under the Code of Criminal Procedure.
In the instant
case when a First Information Report was filed against the appellant
and steps were taken for obtaining a search warrant for the search of
his house, investigation within the meaning of Rule 7 (3)
became
pending on and from November 24, 1967.
The suspension order,
therefore, made on November 28, 1967 was well within the ambit of
the power of the government under the said provision of law. Most of
the charges levelled against the appellant, and at this stage, we do not
know whether they were right or wrong, true or false, were in relation
to his alleged acts of corruption and misuse of his official position.
In our view the making of the suspension order against the appellant under rule 7(3) of the Rules was legal and valid.
But did
it
come to an end, if so, when? The rule provides that the suspension
order may last "until the termination of all proceedings relating
to"
the charges.
Appellant's counsel submitted that, as mentioned in one
of the letters of the State Government to the Central Government, the
investigation was complete on November 23, 1968, hence on the termination of the investigation the ·suspension order terminated.
We
have no difficulty in rejecting this argument as unsound.
Under rule
7 (3) the suspension order can be made to continue until the terminanation of all proceedings viz. investigation, inquiry or trial which may
follow the investigation.
Strictly speaking, the investigation could not
be said to be complete until the submission of the Charge-Sheet.
Factual completion of the investigation in November, 1968 did
not
terminate all proceedings in relation to the charges levelled against the
appellant.
But obviously the suspension order came to an end by the
compulsory retirement of the appellant.
After retirement from
service he could no longer be deemed to be under suspension.
'
'
•
•
D. D. SURI v. A. K. BARREN (Untwalia, J.)
355
During the hearing of the appeal and in view of certain new stands
A
taken in the ,petition filed in this Court by the appellant, an interesting
point cropped up and that is this.
What was the effect of the appellant's compulsory retirement on his suspension ? He was not prosecuted before his retirement. What is to be the effect of his retirement
on the appellant's pay and allowances for the period of his suspension
viz. between November 28, 1967 and June 9, 1971.
Does rule 9 of
the Rules cover the appellant's case? If so, is he entitled to an order
B
in his favour for paying him full pay and allowances for the said period
because he was maoe to compufsorily retire without any stigma and
not by way of punishment? We did not feel persuaded to decide this
aspect of the matter for the first time in this appeal.
Since we are
remitting the case back to the High Court, we permit the appellant to
raise this point there, if necessary, by amendment of his writ petition.
We may, however, hasten to add that the counsel for the State of
C
Orissa assured us that if the appellant would be exonerated of the
charges levelled against him and acquitted in the criminal proceedings,
then the State Government will pay him his full pay and allowances
for the period of his suspension.
Evidence at the trial is over and only the judgment has to be delivered.
Without the aid of the jucfgment in the criminal cases, we did
D
not find it advisable or possible to decide the third point urged on
behalf of the appellant.
On the materials in the records of this case,
it will not be possible to say that the charges levelled against the appellant were false and that action was 'taken against him mala fide.
The
two matters are so interwoven and interconnected that we think it
expedient to leave the matter for a fresh decision by the High Court
after the judgment is delivered at the criminal trial which is already
E
concluded.
We vacate the order of stay made by this
Court and
direct the Trial Judge to deliver his judgment without any
further
delay.
The High Court, if necessary, will'go into the question of mala
fides when the case goes back to it on remand and it will do so taking
note, inter alia, of the judgment in the crffitinal cases.
Nothing we have said in this judgment is meant to prejudice either
F
party in the disposal of the letters patent appeal pending in the Delhi
High Court in which the appellant is persuing his challenge to
the
order of his compulsory retirement.
But it will he desirable, may,
necessary to dispose of LPA 3/1973 pending in the Delhi High Court
at a very early date so that the judgment may be made use of by
either party, if necessary, in the Orissa High Conrt in aid of the disposal of the case being remitted back by us to that court
G
In the result we allow this appeal, set aside the order of the High
Court, remit the case back to it for fresh disposal in the light of this
judgment.
We make no order as to costs.
P.H.P.
Appeal allowed.