2007 Supreme(SC) 1612

2007(8) Supreme 411
Supreme Court of india
S.B. Sinha & Harjit Singh Bedi, JJ.
State Government of M.P. & Ors. — Petitioners
versus
Shankarlal — Respondent
Appeal (civil) 587 of 2005
Decided on : 13-12-2007

Important Point
Subsistence allowance should be paid to an employee who has been placed under suspension. All facilities for receipt of payment of subsistence allowance must be given to delinquent officer.

Headnote:Madhya Pradesh Fundamental Rules – Rule 53 - Initiation of departmental proceedings against respondent an upper division clerk – Order placing respondent under suspension clearly stipulated that respondent would be paid subsistence allowance in terms of Rule 53 of Rules – Termination of services of Respondent on exparte departmental proceedings – Application for non payment of subsistence allowance before Tribunal – Rejected on ground that applicant himself was responsible for delayed payment of subsistence allowance – Writ petition – Allowed by High Court holding that non payment of subsistence allowance amounted to violation of principles of natural justice – High Court directed reinstatement of petitioner on ground that period during which subsistence allowance was not paid was quite long and that unless and until subsistence allowance was paid to delinquent employee in proper time, how he could take proper steps in defending his case in departmental enquiry – Appeal there against - Rule 53 of Madhya Pradesh Fundamental Rules provides that subsistence allowance should be paid to an employee who has been placed under suspension - It is, thus, not in dispute that all facilities for receipt of payment of subsistence allowance must be given to the delinquent officer - High Court, committed a serious error in holding that question of prejudice was irrelevant in so far as it misread and misinterpreted decision in case of Jagdamba Prasad Shukla v. State of U.P. & Ors. - Relief was granted to the appellant having regard to the fact situation obtaining therein in that case - High Court, was required to arrive at a correct finding of fact so as to enable it to pose unto itself right question for arriving at a right decision - Respondent, indisputably, has been found guilty of commission of misconduct - A finding of fact had been arrived at by Tribunal that respondent himself was to thank himself for non-receipt of subsistence allowance - It was held that appellant had taken all possible steps for disbursement of subsistence allowance - Impugned judgment of High Court set aside and matter remitted to High Court for consideration thereof afresh. (Paras 11, 12, 16 to 19)

       Facts of the case :

       Departmental proceedings were initiated against respondent an upper division clerk. A suspension order was passed against Respondent. Order placing respondent under suspension clearly stipulated that respondent would be paid subsistence allowance in terms of Rule 53 of Rules. Services of Respondent were terminated on exparte departmental proceedings. Application for non payment of subsistence allowance before Tribunal was rejected on ground that applicant himself was responsible for delayed payment of subsistence allowance. Writ petition thereagainst was allowed by High Court holding that non payment of subsistence allowance amounted to violation of principles of natural justice. High Court directed reinstatement of petitioner on ground that period during which subsistence allowance was not paid was quite long and that unless and until subsistence allowance was paid to delinquent employee in proper time, how he could take proper steps in defending his case in departmental enquiry.

       Present Appeal has been filed against said order of High Court.

       Findings of the Court :

       The Court held that Rule 53 of Madhya Pradesh Fundamental Rules provides that subsistence allowance should be paid to an employee who has been placed under suspension. No dispute that all facilities for receipt of payment of subsistence allowance must be given to delinquent officer. High Court, committed a serious error in holding that question of prejudice was irrelevant in so far as it misread and misinterpreted decision in case of Jagdamba Prasad Shukla v. State of U.P. & Ors. Relief was granted to appellant having regard to fact situation obtaining therein in that case. High Court, was required to arrive at a correct finding of fact so as to enable it to pose unto itself right question for arriving at a right decision. Respondent, indisputably, had been found guilty of commission of misconduct. A finding of fact had been arrived at by Tribunal that respondent himself was to thank himself for non-receipt of subsistence allowance. It was held that appellant had taken all possible steps for disbursement of subsistence allowance. Hence impugned judgment of High Court held liable to be set aside and matter remitted to High Court for consideration thereof afresh.

       Result : Appeal allowed partly.