The central legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation and application of Rule 54 of the Rules, emphasizing the importance of principles of natural justice in disciplinary proceedings and determining the entitlement to pay and allowances for government servants.

JUDGMENT :

K.M. JOSEPH, J.

Leave granted.

Since both the appeals raise common issues, we dispose of the same by a common judgment.

(1) We take the appeal arising out of SLP (C)No. 32112 of 2016 as the leading case, i.e. Civil Appeal No. 2386 of 2022. The respondent herein was employed with the appellants and working in the cadre of Assistant Engineer. Disciplinary proceedings was taken against the respondent. Apparently, in contemplation of the disciplinary proceedings, the respondent was placed under suspension by an order in the year 1981. In the case of the respondent in the leading case, proceedings culminated in penalty of compulsory retirement. The respondent filed a civil suit. The civil Court granted relief by which the appellants were directed to consider the matter afresh. Fresh consideration resulted in the respondent being visited with the penalty of withholding of three grade increments with cumulative effect. The respondent carried the matter further in the departmental proceedings. Suffice is to say that in exercise of the power under Rule 34 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1958, an order came to be passed substituting the penalty with penalty of censure. Thereafter, further proceedings were taken within the meaning of Rule 54 of the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Rules’ for brevity).

This proceeding resulted in the impugned order which was finally impugned in the writ petition which has given rise to the present appeal.

(2) The substance of the order in the leading case is as follows:

The period of absence from duty which comprises of the period of suspension in which the first respondent was placed was treated as duty only for the purpose of pension. It is further ordered that no amount other than subsistence allowance shall be payable. This triggered filing of the writ petition by the respondent. The learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition and the following is the operative portion of the order:

“Accordingly, this petition for writ is allowed. The order dated 3.9.2001 to the extent it treats the period during which the petitioner was out of employment as a consequent to an order of compulsory retirement as “disa-non” and also denies payment of full wages for the period he remained under suspension is declared illegal and, therefore, the same is quashed. The petitioner declared entitled for full wages for the period he remained under suspension. The respondents are further directed to consider candidature of the petitioner afresh for the purpose of promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer against the vacancies of the year 1978-79. In the event the petitioner is found suitable for promotion against the vacancies of the year 1978-79, the promotion be recorded to him as such with all other consequential benefits.

No order to costs.”

The appeal carried by the appellants was unsuccessful.

(3) The respondent in other case also came to be initially visited with penalty of withdrawal of increments. He also obtained relief in the form of substituting of the penalty with the penalty of censure. He also filed a writ petition feeling aggrieved by the order passed purporting to be under Rule 54 of the Rules. The learned Single Judge in his case followed the judgment in the case of Mangat Lal Sidana (the leading case) and granted relief which was sought on similar lines. The appeal filed by the appellants in this case was also unsuccessful. Hence the appeals.

(4) We have heard Dr. Manish Sighvi, learned Additional Advocate General, Ms. Archana Pathak Dave, learned counsel for the respondent in SLP (C)No. 32112/2016 and have also heard Mr. Ajay Choudhary, the learned counsel appointed as CA No.2386/2022 (@ SLP (C)No. 32112/2016) etc.

Amicus Curiae finding that the respondent in SLP (C)No. 30740/2017 did not put in appearance.

(5) The principal bone of contention appears to arise from the true purport of Rule 54 of the Rules.

According to Dr. Manish Singhvi, le