# · .- ., .~ ' STATE OF PUNJAB v. KHEMIRAM

- **Citation:** [1970] 2 S.C.R. 657
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1969-10-06
- **Bench:** J. M. Shelat1 V. Bhargava, C. A. VAID!ALINGAM A1'D I. D. DuA
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/state-of-punjab-v-khemiram-4932
- **Pages:** 9

## Headnote

Punjab Civil Serl'ices Ru/es, r .. 3. 26(d)-Ortler of suspension n·ht'ther
e/]1.•ctive froni date of its issue or d~uc of receipt by concerned Gover111rrent
ser\·cnt-V alidity o/ ·procc·edings ending in disniirsal when order of suspeu ..
siou not re~eived by Government ser1.:arzt before age of superannuation,
The services of the respondent \\"ho
wa~ an Inspector Cooperative
So~icties in the Punjab were lent to thl:i: Himachal Pradesh Government
in the capacity of Assistant Registrar.
His date. of superannuation \\.1lS
Augus~ 4, 1958.
On July 16, 1958 he was granted 19 days leave pre-
·parntory to retirement by the Himachal Pradesh Governn1ent.
On July
25, 1958 the Government 'of Punjab asked the Himachal Pradesh Gov.
crnment tb cancel the leavC granted to the respondent und to direct him
to revert to the Punjab Government immediately.
On July 31, the Pun·
jab Government sent ~telegram tQ the respondent at his home addrl!ss
as he had gone there imrnediate!y ~tfter grant of leave.
The te1e[,f."an1 in.
ionned him that he had been "Suspended from service with effect fn"ln1.
Augu."t 2, 1958. On that very day a charge....sheet \Vas issued to him, by letter
1..b.1.c-d August 2, 1958 the Himachal· Pradesh Government informed the
respondent that his leave was reduced by two days i.e. it v.:ould end on
. .\ugust 2, 1958. All these. communicatioDs reached the respondent 3fter
August 4, 1958. He "ttendcd the subsequent departmental enquiry_).l.Ildcr
protest.
After con1pleting formalities the Punjab Governmeflt-diSml.s"cd
him from service.. Thereupon the respondent filed a \\-Tit petition in the
High Court challenging his dismissal. It was urged that as he bad aln·b.dy
r~tirc<l on August 4, 1958 the proceedings starting with the order cf sus·
pension and ending with his ,dismiss:il were void and against the terms of
r. 3.26(d) of the Punjab Civil Service Rules as they then stood.
'The
sai!.1 rule provided that a Government servant under suspension for n1iscon<luct shall not be permitted to retire on his reaching the date of compulsory retirement but should be retained in service until the e.-:quiry into
the charge was completed and a final order passed passed thereon. The
Single Judge allo\ve<l the respondent's petition.
The Division Bench in
3ppt!al upheld the order of the Single Judge relying upon its earlier judg·
nlcnt in Dr. Pratap Singh's cate \vhich had held that an order passed und~r
r. 3.~6(d) tciok effect from the day it was served on the concerned Gov-
.crn1ncn~ servant. The State appealed,
HELD : The 'communication of an order such :i.s an order of suspen·
idon is only necessary· because till the order is isshed and actually sent
0out to the person concerned the authority making such order would be
;n a posi6on to change its mind and modify it if it thouAht fit.
Once
such ar\ order is sent out it goes out of the control of such nn autbority,
a.hd thcre'fore. there would be no chance whatsoever of its changing its
mind or modifying it. Therefore nfter nn order is issued and sent out
tb tbC· conccY.ned Government serva11;t, it must be held to have heen com~
niunicated to him no matter when he actually received it .. [665 B-C]
1 The vieW that it is only~ from the' date of the actual receipt by him
:that the order becomes effective.could not be accepted for then it \Vould
658
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(1970] 2 S.C.R.
be possihic. for a Government seryant to effectively th\vart an order by
avoiding receipt of it by one method or the other till after the date of
his !"etiren1ent even th'Jugh such an order is passed and desoatchcd before
such date.
[665 D]
Actual kno,vledge by the conce;rned Government servant of an o.rdcr
\vherc it is one of dismissal may. perhaps be nccess:i.ry becauSe of
the
consequences \Vhich the decision in Anzar Singh's cose contemplates. But
such consequences would not occur in· the case. of an officer who has proceeded on leave and against whom an order of suspension is passed because in his case there. is no qu

## Text

JI)
F
.. :·G··
...
:·
.-
.,
.~
'
STATE OF PUNJAB
v.
KHEMIRAM
October 6, 1969
657
(J. M. SHELAT1 V. BHARGAVA, C. A. VAID!ALINGAM A1'D
I. D. DuA, JJ.]
Punjab Civil Serl'ices Ru/es, r .. 3. 26(d)-Ortler of suspension n·ht'ther
e/]1.•ctive froni date of its issue or d~uc of receipt by concerned Gover111rrent
ser\·cnt-V alidity o/ ·procc·edings ending in disniirsal when order of suspeu ..
siou not re~eived by Government ser1.:arzt before age of superannuation,
The services of the respondent \\"ho
wa~ an Inspector Cooperative
So~icties in the Punjab were lent to thl:i: Himachal Pradesh Government
in the capacity of Assistant Registrar.
His date. of superannuation \\.1lS
Augus~ 4, 1958.
On July 16, 1958 he was granted 19 days leave pre-
·parntory to retirement by the Himachal Pradesh Governn1ent.
On July
25, 1958 the Government 'of Punjab asked the Himachal Pradesh Gov.
crnment tb cancel the leavC granted to the respondent und to direct him
to revert to the Punjab Government immediately.
On July 31, the Pun·
jab Government sent ~telegram tQ the respondent at his home addrl!ss
as he had gone there imrnediate!y ~tfter grant of leave.
The te1e[,f."an1 in.
ionned him that he had been "Suspended from service with effect fn"ln1.
Augu."t 2, 1958. On that very day a charge....sheet \Vas issued to him, by letter
1..b.1.c-d August 2, 1958 the Himachal· Pradesh Government informed the
respondent that his leave was reduced by two days i.e. it v.:ould end on
. .\ugust 2, 1958. All these. communicatioDs reached the respondent 3fter
August 4, 1958. He "ttendcd the subsequent departmental enquiry_).l.Ildcr
protest.
After con1pleting formalities the Punjab Governmeflt-diSml.s"cd
him from service.. Thereupon the respondent filed a \\-Tit petition in the
High Court challenging his dismissal. It was urged that as he bad aln·b.dy
r~tirc<l on August 4, 1958 the proceedings starting with the order cf sus·
pension and ending with his ,dismiss:il were void and against the terms of
r. 3.26(d) of the Punjab Civil Service Rules as they then stood.
'The
sai!.1 rule provided that a Government servant under suspension for n1iscon<luct shall not be permitted to retire on his reaching the date of compulsory retirement but should be retained in service until the e.-:quiry into
the charge was completed and a final order passed passed thereon. The
Single Judge allo\ve<l the respondent's petition.
The Division Bench in
3ppt!al upheld the order of the Single Judge relying upon its earlier judg·
nlcnt in Dr. Pratap Singh's cate \vhich had held that an order passed und~r
r. 3.~6(d) tciok effect from the day it was served on the concerned Gov-
.crn1ncn~ servant. The State appealed,
HELD : The 'communication of an order such :i.s an order of suspen·
idon is only necessary· because till the order is isshed and actually sent
0out to the person concerned the authority making such order would be
;n a posi6on to change its mind and modify it if it thouAht fit.
Once
such ar\ order is sent out it goes out of the control of such nn autbority,
a.hd thcre'fore. there would be no chance whatsoever of its changing its
mind or modifying it. Therefore nfter nn order is issued and sent out
tb tbC· conccY.ned Government serva11;t, it must be held to have heen com~
niunicated to him no matter when he actually received it .. [665 B-C]
1 The vieW that it is only~ from the' date of the actual receipt by him
:that the order becomes effective.could not be accepted for then it \Vould
658
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(1970] 2 S.C.R.
be possihic. for a Government seryant to effectively th\vart an order by
avoiding receipt of it by one method or the other till after the date of
his !"etiren1ent even th'Jugh such an order is passed and desoatchcd before
such date.
[665 D]
Actual kno,vledge by the conce;rned Government servant of an o.rdcr
\vherc it is one of dismissal may. perhaps be nccess:i.ry becauSe of
the
consequences \Vhich the decision in Anzar Singh's cose contemplates. But
such consequences would not occur in· the case. of an officer who has proceeded on leave and against whom an order of suspension is passed because in his case there. is no question of his doipg any act or passing. an.:
orJer a;id such act or order being challenged as invalid. 1[665 E-F]
In this view it must be held in the present case, that the order of sus~
pzn~ion was vali<lly passed and was communicated to the
respondent
before Augusl 4, 1958 and therefore was effective as from 1uly 31, 19.58,
Accordingly tl)e State's appeal must be allowed. [665 G]
Dr. PrC1tC1p Singh v. State of Punjab,
l.L.R. [1962]
15(2)
Puajab
642, Raia Hctrish Chandra Raj Singh v o1 The
Deputy J_and
Aquisition
Officer, .[1962] 1 S.C.R. 0-Y6 . .JJachhituir Singh v. The State of Punjab,
[1962] 3 Supp. S.C:R. 713, S. Prar,:p Si11gli v. Stai'e of Punjab, [1964]
4 S.C.R. 733. State of Punjab v. Sodhi Sukdev Si11g/i, [1961] 2 S.C.R.
c
371 and State of Punjab v. An1ct" Singh Harika
A.I.R. 1966 S.C.
1313,
D
considered.
"
.
CtVIL APPELLATE JuR1so1cnoN: Civil Appeal No. 1217 of
1966.
_:
-
Appeal from the judgment and order dated May 29, 1963 of
the Punjab High Court in Letters Patent Appeal No. 251 of 1962.
V. C. Mahajan amd R. N. Sachlhe;y, for the appellant.
Bhagat Singh Chawla, K. L. Mehta and S. K. Mehta, for the
respondent.
The Judgme,nt 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
i,t is made or when it is actually served on and received by him,
The respondent was appointed as a sub-inspector, Co-operative Societies, in 1925 in the service of the State of Punjab.
He
was promoted to the post of Inspector and was confirmed thereon
in 1939.
In 1952, he was approved for promotion to the post
of Assistant Registrar and officiated· thereafter as such in short
term vacancies froth March to November 1953.
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 wern lent to Himachal Pradesh Governmen.t
for appointni~nt as the Assistant·.Registrar.
While he was so
serving there, he was charge-sheeted on August 9, 1955 by the
Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Punjab in connection with cerE
F
H
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
PUNJAB V. KHEMI RAM (She/al, J.)
659
tain matters which occurred in 1950 while he was working under
the Punjab Government.
Those proceedings, however, were
hpt in abeyance as the police in the meantime started investigation in those matters.
In 1958, the Punjab Government decided to take disciplinary action against the respondent and informed the Hirnachal
Pradesh Government of it on July 17, 1958.
On July 16, 1958,
however, the Himachal Pradesh Government had granted to the
re.spondent 19 days leave preparatory to retirement, which was to
take place on August 4, 1958.
On being so informed, the Punjab Government by its telegram dated July 25, 1958 informed the
Himachal Pradesh Government that it had no authority to grant
such leave and requested that Government to cancel it and direct
the respondent to revert to the Punjab Government immediately.
On July 31, 1958 the Punjab Government sent a telegram.
Ex. 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.
The telegram informed him that he had been suspended from service with effect from August 2, 1958.
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 respondent's said home address.
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 bv two days, i.e. upto
August 2, 1958, instead of August 4, 1958 as originally granted.
On August 25, 1958 the respondent sent a representation to
the Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Punjab in which he contended 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.
On October 6, 1958 the Punjab Government replied to
l1im rejecting his aforesaid contentions and informed him that if
he did not attend the said enquiry, the same would be held
~x
parte. lt appears that th.~ respondent attended the said enquiry.
but under protest.
On the completion of the enquiry, the officer
holding it made his report and sent it to the Punjab Government.
On August 14, 1959 that Government sent him a notice to show
cause why the penalty of dismissal should not be awarded against
him.
The respondent sent his reply to the said notice.
By its
order dated May 28, 1960 the Punjab Government ordered the
respondent's dismissal.
Thereupon, the respondent filed a writ petition in the High
Court of Punjab challenging the order of dismissal and contend-
660
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(1970] 2 S.C.R.
: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
tdegram, dated July 31, 1958, was received by him after his
retirement on August 4, 1958, and therefore, it could not have
the effect of refusal to permit him tq retire.
The writ petition was, in the first instance, heard by a learned
Single Judge.
He noted that it was not denied before him that
the respondent on being granted leave had proceedeg to his village Betahar, post office Haripur in Tehsil Kulu, that he was
there when the Himachal Pradesh Government issued the notification dated August 2, 1958 curtailing his leave upto that date
and that a copy of that notification with the endorsement calling
upon him to report to the Punjab Government for duty on Augl!st
4, 1958 was sent to the respondent on August 6, 1958. He
also noted 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.
On these
two facts it was contended 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.
This contention was raised on the strength of rule 3.26(d) of
the. Punjab Civil Services Rules, as it then stood.
That rule
·provided that a Government servant under suspension on a charge
of misconduct shall not be permitted to retire on his reaching the
-Oate of compulsory retirement but should be retained in service
until the enquiry into the charge was completed and a final order
was passed thereon.
The argument was that as the respondent
was not served with the said order of suspension on or before
August 4, 1958 and as he had retired on that day and was, therefore, no longer in service, the said enquiry and the said order
of dismissal were in breach of rule 3.26(d) and were illegal.
The
learned Single Judge accepted the contention and allowed the writ
petition with the following observations :
"It is indubitably correct that action for dismissal
against a Government servant can be taken during the
tenure of the service.
It is not denied that the petitioner
was due to retire on the afternoon of 4th August, 1958.
It has not been challenged that the petitioner had gone
to his village in Kulu Tehsil after the leave preparatory
to retirement was granted to him.
The petitioner was
entitled to treat himself as on leave preparatory to retirement
till
he
received
information
to
the
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
II
PUNJAB v. KHEM! RAM (She/at, J.)
contrary.
No order has been proved to hav~ b~n served on him before the 4th August, 19S8 intimatmg the
petitioner that he had been reverted to the Punjab State
or that he had been suspended. It must, . therefore, be
held in the circumstances that the petitioner had actually retired from service and he cannot be bound by any
subsequent proceedings."
661
On the State Government filing a Letters Patent appeal against
the said order, a Division Bench of that High Court followed its
earlier judgment in Dr. Pratap Singh v. State of Punjab('), which
had held that an order pas~ed under r. 3 .26( d) took effect from
the day it was served on the concerned Government servant, and
upheld tne order of the learned Single Judge in the following
terms:
"In the present case the fact remains that the respondent was not in a position to know and could not
possibly have submitted to or carried out the orders
which had been ·made before 4th August, 1958 and
that also without any fault on his part, with the result
that the decision of the learned Single Judge must be upheld."
In this vi~w, the Division Bench dismissed the State's appeal.
It appears that the respondent had, besides the said cont~i:
tion, raised three more contentions ·summarised by the Division Bench in the penultimate paragraph of its judgment. These
three contentions were left undecided in view of the Division Bench
deciding the appeal on the first contention.
The question for determination thus is whether the said order
of suspension admittedly made before the date of the respondent's
retiremer't as required by the said rule 3.26(d) did not take effect
by . reason only that it was received by the respondent after· the
said date of retirement and whether he must, therefore, be held
to have rc:lired on August 4, 1958 rendering the enquir; and the
ultimate order of dismissal invalid.
There can be no doubt that if disciplinary action is sought to
be taken against a Government servant it must be. done before he
retires as provided by the said rule. If a disciplinary enquiry
cannot be concluded before the date of Buch retirement the course
open to the Government is to pass an on!er of susi>ension and
refuse to permit the concetned public servant to retire and retain
him in service till such enquiry is completed and a final order is
passed therein.
That such a course was adopted by the Punjab
Government by passing the orde, of suspension on July 31, 1958
0) I. L. R. [1962] 15
(2) Punjab 642.
662
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(1970] 2 s.c.R.
cannot be gainsaid.
That fact is clearly- demonstrated by the
telegram, Ex. P-1, which was in fact despatched to the
respon~
dent on July 31, 1958 by the Secretary, Co-operative Societies
to the Punjab Government, informing the respondent that he was
placed under suspension with dl'ect from August 2, 1958. As
the telegram shows, it was sent to his home uddress at village
Batahar, post office Haripur, as the respondent had already by
that time proceeded on leave sanctioned by the Himachal Pradl'-sh
Administration.
Ex. R-1 is the memorandum, also dated July 31,
1958, by which the Punjab Government. passed the said order of
suspension and further ordered not to permit the respondent to
retire on August 4, 1958.
That exhibit shows that a copy of
that memorandum was forwarded· to the respondent at his said
address at village Batahar, post-office Haripur.
Lastly,. there is
annexure H to the respondent's petition which consists of an express telegram dated August 2, 1958 and a letter of the same
date in confirmation thereof informing the respondent that he was
placed under suspension with effect from that date.
Both the telegram and the letter in confirmation were despatched at the address
given by the respondent, i.e., at his village Batahar,
post office
Haripur.
These documents,· therefore, clearly demonstrate that
the order of suspension was passed on July 31, 1958, i.e., before
the date of his retirement and had passed from the hands of the
Punjab Government as a result of their having been transmitted
to the respondent.
The position, therefore, war, not as if the
order passed by the Punjab Government suspending the respondent from service remained with the Government or that
it could have, therefore, changed its mind about it or modified it.
Since the respondent had been granted leave and had in fact proceeded on such leave, this was also not a case where, despite
the order of suspension, he could have transacted any act: or
passed any order in his capacity as the Assistant Registrar.
But the contention was that this was not enough and the order
of suspension did not take effect till it was received by the respondent, which as aforesaid, was sometime in the middle of
August 1958, long after the date of his retirement. In support
of this contention certain authorities were cited before us which
we must now examine to find out whether they lay down the proposition canvassed by counsel for the respondent.
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
The first decision brought to our notice was in Raja Harish
Chandra Raj Si.'1gh v. The Deputy Land Acquisition Officer(')
where the question canvassed was as to what was the date of the
award for purposes of s. 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894,
H
and where it was held thaf such an award of the Collector is not
(I) [1962]1 S.C.R. 676.
PUNJAB v. KHEMJ RAM (She/at, !.)
663
A
a decision but an offer of compensation on behalf of the Government to the owner and is not effective until it is communicated to
him.
The making of the award, it was said, did not consist
merely in the physical act of writing the award or signing it or
filing it in the office of the Collector. It also involved its communication to . the owner either actually or constructively.
No
B
question, however, arose there whether an award can be said to
have been communicated to the owner if it was despatched to him
out was not actually received by him.
In Bachhittar Singh v.
The State of Punjab(1) a case of disciplinary action taken against
a Government servant, it was said that an order would not be
said to have come into effect until it was communicated, as Until
C
then it can be reconsidered and modified, and therefore,- haS till
then a provisional character.
That was a case where the Minister
concerned had made a note on a file and no order in terms of
that noie was drawn up in the name of the Governor as_ required
by Art. 166(1) of the Constitution or communicated to the concerned Govermnent savant.
As stated earlier, the High Cmr-t relied on its own judgment
D
in S. Pratap Sinr?h v. The State of Punjab(') and its observations
at page 656 of the report.
That decision came up before this
Court in app.eal and the decision therein of this Court is to be
found in S. Pratap Singh v. The State o; Punjab(').
The appellant there was a Civil Sur~eon in the Pun.iab State service.
In
1956, he was posted to Jullundur where he .remained until he
E
proceeded on leave prepartory to retirement sometime in Dece,;1ber 1960. His leave was sanctioned on December 18, 1960 and
was notified in the Gazette on January 27, 1961. On June 3.
1961 the Governor passed an order of suspension with immediate
effect and revoked his leave.
He also passed an order under r.
3.26(d) to the effect that as he was to retire on June 16, 1961
F
he should be retained in ~ervice beyond that date till the completion of the departmental enquiry against him.
These orders actually reached the appe!bnt on July 19, 196r but were published
m the Gazette Extraordinary on June 10, 1961.
On the question
whether the State Government could validly pass the aforesaid
orcte:s, this Court held that under r. 8.15 of the Punjab Civil
G
Services Rules there was no restriction on the power of revocation of leave with respect to the time when it is to be exercised
that the date from which a Government servant is on leave pre'.
•
paratory to retirement cannot be treated as the date of his retirement from service and that an order of suspension of the Gov-.
ernment servant during such leave is valid.
Two of the learned
Judges held at page 771 of the Report that an order of suspension
H
of -the appellant when he was on leave could be effective from the
moment it was issued. They distinguished the decisions in Bach-
-
T1)TJ96?J) S"rr. S_C_R_71S.--
(2) T.L R [1967] 15 (') PPrj 64'
())
[1964] 4 S.C.R. 733.
. ' .
-·
664
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[ 1970] 2 S.C.R
hitrar Singh v. The State of Punjab(') and State of Punjab v.
Sodhi Sukhdev Sinph(2), firstly, on the ground that the first case
was one of dismissal and not of mere suspension, and secondly,
that in neither case a final order had been passed. We may, however, mention that the other three learned Judges did not deal
with this question, and therefore, neither expressed their dissent
nor agreement.
Indeed, Ayyangar, J., who spoke for them, observed at page 73 7 of the Report that whereas they agreed with
the main conclusion that the impugned orders were not beyond the
Covernment's power they should not be taken to nave accepted
the interpretation which Dayal, J., had for him5elf and Mudholkar, J., placed on several of the rules considered by them.
In view of these observations it is difficult to say whether the
majority agreed or not with the view taken by Dayal, J., that a
Government's order becomes effective as soon as it is issued.
The last decision cited before us was that of State of Puniab
v. Amar Singh Harika(') where o·ne of the questions canvassed
was whether an order of dismissal can be said to be effective only
from the date when it is made known or communicated to the
concerned public servant.
The facts of the case show that though
the order of dismissal was passed on June 3, 1949 and a copy
thereof was sent to other 6 persons noted thereunder, no ~opy
was sent to the concerned public servant who came to know of it
only on May 28, 1951 and tha! :oo only through another officer.
On these facts, the Court held, rejecting the contention
that the order became effective 'J soon as it was issued, that the
mere passing of the order of dis nissal would not make it effective unless it was published and communicated to the concerned
officer.
The question then is whether communicating the order means
its actual receipt by the concerned Government servant.
The
order of suspension in question was published in the Gazette
though that was after the date when the respondent was to retire.
But the point is whether it was ccmmunicated to him before that
date.
The ordinary meaning of the word 'communicate' is to
impart, confer or transmit information. (cf. Shorter Oxford EngA
B
c
D
E
F
lish Dictionary, Vol. 1, p. 352). As already stated,
telegrams
<lated July 31, and August 2, 1958 were despatched to the resG
pendent at the address given by him where communications by
Government should be despatched.
Both the telegrams transmitted or imparted information to the responJent that he was
suspended from service with effect from August 2, 1958. It may
be that he actually received them in or about the middle of August
1958 after the date of his retirement.
But how can it be said
that the information about his having been suspended was not imH
(1) [1962] 3 Supp, S,C,R, 713.
(2) [1961] 2 S .. C R. 371.
(3) A. J. R. 1966 S. C. 1313.
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
PUNJAB v. KHEMI RAM (She/at, /.)
66S
I
parted or transmitted to bim on July 31 and August 2, 1958, i.e.,
before August 4, 1958 when he would have retired ? It will be
seen that in all the decisions cited before us it was the communication of the impugned order which was held to be essential and
not its actual receipt by the officer concerned and such communication was held to be necessary because till the order is issued and
actually sent out to the person concerned the authority making
such order would be in a position to change its mind and modify
it if it thought fit.
But once such an order is sent out, it goes
om of the control of such an authority, and therefore, there would
be no chance whatsoever of its changing its mind or modifying it
In our view, once an order is issued and it is sent out to the
concerned Government servant, it must be held to have been
communicated to him, no matter when he actually received it.
We find jt difficult to persuade ourselves to accept the view that
it is only from the date of the actual receipt by him that the order
becomes effective. If that be the true meaning of communication, it would be possible for a Government servant to effectively
thwart an order by avoiding receipt of it by one method or the
other till after the date of his retirement even though sue~ an
order is passed and despatched to bim before such date.
An officer against whom action is sought to be taken, thus, may go
away from the address given by him for service of such orders
or may deliberately give a wrong address and thus prevent or
delay its receipt and be able to defeat its service on him.
Such a
meaning of the word 'communication' ought not to be given unless the provision in question expressly so provides.
Actual know"
ledge by him of an order where it is one of dismissal, may, perhaps, become necessary because of the consequences which the
decision in The State of Punjab v. Amar Singh (1) contemplates.
But such consequences would not occur in the case of
an officer who has proceeded on leave and against whom an order of
suspension is passed because in his case there is no question of
his doing any act or passing any order and such act or order being
challenged as invalid.
-
. In this view, we must hold that the order of suspension was
vahdly passed and was communicated to the respondent before ·
August 4, 1958, and therefore, was effective as from July 31
.1958.
Accordingly, \Ve allow the State's appeal and set aside th~
1u.dgment an.d order of the High Court.
But as the High Court
did not decide the aforesaid three questions raised on behalf of
th.e re;;pondent: we. remfill:d. the case to the High Court with the
drrect10n to give its dec1S1on thereon in accordance with law
The cost of this appeal will be costs before the High Court.
·
Y.P.
G.C.
Appeal allowed and case remanded.
(I) A.I.R. 1966 S.C. 1313-