Back
2011 (5) Supreme 375
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
R.V. Raveendran and A. K. Patnaik, JJ.
The Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation — Appellant
versus
M. Prabhakar Rao — Respondent
Civil Appeal No. 6014 of 2011
(Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 22723 of 2010)
Decided on : 28-7-2011
Facts of the Case :
Respondent while working as a Bill Collector in the Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad was placed under suspension by competent authority for accepting bribe herein in the instant case..Later competent authority revoked suspension of respondent and reinstated him in service . Respondent was thereafter prosecuted, but acquitted by trial court. Representation was made by respondent seeking back-wages for suspension period and other consequential benefits. Case of appellant corporation on the other hand was that since suspension of respondent could not be regarded as wholly unjustified , back-wages and consequential benefits for the suspension period could not be paid to respondent.
Findings of the Court :
Competent authority had formed opinion that suspension of respondent could not be regarded as wholly unjustified and had declined to grant any salary and allowance to respondent during the period of suspension. Yet, Tribunal found fault with the order of the competent authority and held that suspension of respondent was unjustified. Held approach of Tribunal, was not correct. Sub-rule (3) of F.R. 54-B nowhere states that in case of acquittal in a criminal proceedings employee is entitled to his salary and allowances for the period of suspension. Sub-rule (3) of F.R. 54-B vests power in the competent authority to order that employee will be paid the full pay and allowances for the period of suspension if he is of the opinion that the suspension of the employee was wholly unjustified. Hence, even where the employee is acquitted of the charges in the criminal trial for lack of evidence or otherwise, it is for the competent authority to form its opinion whether suspension of employee was wholly unjustified .So long as such opinion of competent authority was a possible view in the facts and circumstances of the case and on the materials before him, such opinion of competent authority would not be interfered by the Tribunal or the Court. Impugned orders of Tribunal and High Court were set aside-Appeal was allowed
JUDGMENT
A. K. Patnaik, J. —
Delay condoned.
2. Leave granted.
3. This is an appeal against the order dated 18.02.2010 of the Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court dismissing Writ Petition No.1564 of 2010 of the appellant against the order dated 18.08.2009 of the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad, in O.A. No.7377 of 2008.
4. The facts briefly are that the respondent was working as a Bill Collector in the Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad. On 19.05.2007, he was placed under suspension by the Commissioner & Special Officer, Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad (for short ‘the competent authority), as it was reported by the Deputy Director, Anti-Corruption Bureau, C.I.U. and City Range Hyderabad, that he had demanded Rs.2,000/- from the complainant, M.R. Srinivas, for assessment of his house and had accepted the bribe. On 28.06.2001, the competent authority revoked the suspension of the respondent and reinstated him in service without prejudice to the prosecution pending against him and posted him in a non-focal post. The respondent was thereafter prosecuted, but acquitted by the trial court. The acquittal of the respondent was challenged by the State in the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Criminal Appeal No. 2548 of 2004, but by judgment dated 06.12.2004, the High Court dismissed the appeal.
5. The respondent then made a representation seeking back-wages for the suspension period and other consequential benefits, but the same was rejected by Memo dated 01.07.2005. The respondent filed O.A. No.3627 of 2005 before the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad (for short ‘the Tribunal’) against such rejection of back-wages for the suspension period and by order dated 13.11.2006, the Tribunal set aside the Memo dated 01.07.2005 and remitted the matter to the authorities with a direction to re-examine the entire issue with reference to the rules and pass appropriate orders duly giving an opportunity to the respondent. The competent authority in his order dated 17.11.2008 re-examined the issue and took the view that the suspension of the respondent cannot be regarded as wholly unjustified and hence the back-wages and consequential benefits for the suspension period cannot be paid to the respondent. Aggrieved, the respondent filed O.A. No.7377 of 2008 before the Tribunal and by order dated 18.08.2009, the Tribunal allowed the O.A. and set aside the order dated 17.11.2008 of the competent authority and declared that the respondent was entitled for treating the period of suspension as on duty and for release of all consequential benefits. The appellant challenged the order of the Tribunal before the High Court in Writ Petition No. 1564 of 2010 but by the impugned order, the High Court dismissed the Writ Petition.
6. Mrs. D. Bharathi Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant, submitted that under the F.R. 54-B of the Andhra Pradesh Fundamental Rules (for short ‘F.R. 54-B’), which is applicable to employees of the Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad, the competent authority has been vested with the power to pass an order as to how the period of suspension would be treated. She submitted that sub-rule (3) of F.R. 54-B provides that where the competent authority is of the opinion that the suspension was wholly unjustified, an employee would be paid full pay and allowances to which he would have been entitled, had he not been suspended. She submitted that in the facts of the present case, the respondent had been placed under suspension for accepting a bribe from the complainant and a charge sheet was filed in the court against him, but he was acquitted by the trial court and the High Court has sustained the acquittal of the respondent only because the prosecution witnesses had turned hostile and did not support the prosecution version that the respondent was paid Rs.2,000/- towards illegal gratification and on these facts, the competent authority had rightly taken the view that the suspension cannot be regarded a
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
