SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1994 Supreme(SC) 390

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
KULDIP SINGH AND YOGESHWAR DAYAL, JJ.
Depot Manager, Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, Hanumakonda, Appellant v. V. Venkateswarulu and another, etc. etc., Respondents.
Civil Appeals Nos. 2178-79 with 2180-82 of 1994 (arising out of S.L.P. (C) Nos. 15348-49 with 17932-34 of 1993)
Decided on 30-3-1994.
WITH
Depot Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C., Appellant
Versus
V. Sambasiva Rao and another, etc. etc., Respondents.

Advocates:
Altaf Ahmed, B.PARTHASARTHY, B.RAJESHVAR RAO, B.V.BALARAM DAS, VIMAL DAVE

Headnote:

Constitution Of India1950 - Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation Employees - Payment of subsistence allowance - Investigation - Appeals is whether an employee of Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (Corporation) who was kept under suspension pending investigation inquiry or trial in a criminal prosecution is entitled to salary for period of suspension after criminal proceedings are terminated in his favour - High Court has answered question in affirmative and in favour respondents- appeals by Corporation are against judgment of High Court -A It is not necessary to go into in each appeals as Additional Solicitor General appearing for Corporation has very fairly stated that irrespective of final result in se appeals Corporation shall comply with impugned judgments of High Court and pay salary etc- to appellants for suspension period as directed by High Court- We propose to deal with legal question based on interpretation of relevant regulations of Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation Employees –Held employee is entitled to payment of subsistence allowance during period of suspension Regulation which denied subsistence allowance to an employee suspended under Regulation (during investigation/trial on a criminal charge has since been deleted by amendment- We agree with High Court that with deletion of Regulation classification made under Regulation has become redundant- High Court was however not justified in holding that on acquittal and reinstatement an employee becomes - without any further scrutiny - entitled to payment of full salary for period during which he remained under suspension- Regulations are equally applicable to an employee who remained under suspension because of investigation/trial on a criminal charge- competent authority is bound to examine each case in terms of Regulations in case it comes to conclusion that employee concerned is not entitled full salary for period of suspension n authority has to pass a reasoned order after affording an opportunity to employee concerned - In or words it open to competent authority to withhold payment full salary for suspension period on justifiable grounds- employee concerned has to be given a show cause notice in respect of proposed action and his reply taken into consideration before passing final order - Appeal allowed

JUDGMENT

KULDIP SINGH, J.:- Delay condoned.

2. Leave granted in all the special leave petitions.

3.The common question for consideration in these appeals is whether an employee of the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (Corporation), who was kept under suspension pending investigation, inquiry or trial in a criminal prosecution, is entitled to salary for the period of suspension after the criminal proceedings are terminated in his favour? The High Court has answered the question in the affirmative and in favour of the respondents. These appeals by the Corporation are against the judgment of the High Court.

3A. It is not necessary to go into the facts in each of these appeals as Mr. Altaf Ahmed, Learned Additional Solicitor General, appearing for the Corporation has very fairly stated that irrespective of the final result in these appeals, the Corporation shall comply with the impugned judgments of the High Court and pay the salary etc. to the appellants for the suspension period as directed by the High Court. We propose to deal with the legal question based on the interpretation of the relevant regulations of the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation Employees (Classification, Control and Appeal) Regulations, 1967 (the Regulations).

3B. Regulation 18 of the Regulations gives power to the appointing authority to place an employee of the Corporation under suspension. Regulation 19 provides for the extension of the period of suspension. Under Regulation 20 an employee is entitled to the payment of subsistence allowance during the period of suspension and Regulation 21 provides for the pay, allowances and treatment of service on reinstatement of the employee. Regulations 18, 20 and 21 to the extent they are relevant are reproduced hereunder:-

"18. Suspension;

(1) The appointing authority or any authority to which it is subordinate or any other authority authorised by the Corporation in that behalf by a Resolution may, subject to such conditions and limitations, if any, as may be specified, place an employee under suspension from Service :

(a ) Pending investigation or esquire into grave charges, where such suspension is necessary in the public interest;

(b) where any criminal offence is under investigation or trial;

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 circumstance, in which the order of suspension was made.........................

(2) .................................................

(3) Deleted

(4) .............. ....................

(5) ............... ...................

(6) ............... ...................

(7) .................. ...................

19. The extension of the period of suspension: ..............

20. Subsistence allowance during suspension:

(1) An employee under suspension be entitled during the 1st year thereof to a subsistence allowance not exceeding half of his salary on the date, preceding the date of his suspension.

(i) Provided that where the period of suspension exceeds six months, it shall be within the competence of the suspending authority to reduce the amount of subsistence allowance for any period, subsequent to the period of the first six months, by an amount not exceeding fifty per cent of the subsistence allowance so admissible, if, in the opinion of such authority, the prolongation of the suspension has been due to reasons directly attributable to the employee.

(ii) Provided further that the competent authority has discretion to retain the subsistence allowance at the same rate as allowed during the first six months period, if, in the opinion of the competent, authority, the prolongation of suspension has been due to reasons not directly attributable to the employee.

(iii) Provided further that where the period of suspension exceeds one year, it shall e within the competence of the competent authority to enhance such proportion of subsistence allowance for




















Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top