The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of rule 54-B of the Fundamental Rules and the discretion of the Disciplinary Authority in justifying a suspension and determining entitlement to financial benefits.

JUDGMENT

DIPANKAR DATTA, J.

1. The challenge in this writ petition dated 16th November 2021 to the order dated 13th April 2015 of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bombay Bench, Mumbai, Camp at Nagpur, dismissing Original Application No.2121 of 2011, is at the instance of the now septuagenarian original applicant (hereafter ‘the petitioner’, for short).

2. At the material time, the petitioner was posted as a Labourer (unskilled) at the Ordnance Factory, Ambazari. He, along with others, was accused of commission of offences punishable under sections 147, 148, 149 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code. Upon registration of an FIR, the petitioner was detained in custody for a period exceeding 48 hours. This resulted in deemed suspension of the petitioner from 2nd March 1999. The petitioner was enlarged on bail on 26th May 1999. However, the order of suspension was not revoked and the same continued to remain in operation till 11th February 2009, when such order came to be finally revoked upon an order of acquittal dated 18th September 2008 being recorded by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge in Sessions Trial No.319 of 2001. The petitioner was reinstated and ultimately retired on superannuation with effect from 30th November 2010.

3. While revoking the order of suspension, by an order dated 11th February 2009, the General Manager, Ordnance Factory, Ambazari, issued a further order dated 17th February 2009 observing that the period of deemed suspension from 2nd March 1999 to 25th May 1999 and continued suspension from 28th May 1999 to 11th February 2009 cannot be treated as period spent on duty. However, an option was given to the petitioner in the following terms:

“… The fact and circumstances of the case thus amply justified the suspension of the said Shri G.S. Bairisal, Labourer ‘Semi-Skilled’, T.No. FS/691/3074. Under the circumstances, it is considered that the period of deemed suspension from 02/03/1999 to 25/05/1999 and continued suspension from 28/05/1999 to 11/02/2009, cannot be treated as period spent on duty. Shri G.S. Bairisal, Labourer ‘Semi-Skilled’, T.No.FS/691/3074, is however hereby given an option to convert the period of suspension and dismissal into leave due and admissible. It may however be informed that in such an event, if it is found that the total amount of subsistence and other allowances that the said Shri G.S. Bairisal, Labourer ‘Semi-Skilled’, T.No.FS/691/3074, had received during the period of suspension exceeds the amount of leave salary/wages and allowances, the excess amount paid will have to be refunded. Shri G.S. Bairisal, Labourer ‘Semi-Skilled’, T.No. FS/691/3074, should submit his representation, if any, against this memorandum within 15 days of receipt hereof.”

4. The petitioner had addressed a representation dated 8th March 2009 to the said General Manager, wherein he pointed out that he was implicated in the criminal case owing to personal rivalry and conspiracy of the complainants. Since the trial continued for several years without any fault of the petitioner, he prayed that the period spent on suspension be treated as on duty. The said representation of the petitioner was considered and disposed of by the General Manager by an order dated 29th April 2009. It was observed therein that having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances relating to the petitioner’s suspension, the same was fully justified and warranted. The order concluded with the following remark:

“7. NOW, THEREFORE, the Disciplinary Authority further decides that Shri G.S. Bairisal, Labourer ‘Semi-Skilled’, T.No.FS/691/3074, shall not be entitled for any pay and allowances beyond the subsistence allowance already paid during the entire period of his suspension and the intervening period from 02/03/1999 to 25/05/1999 and 28/05/1999 to 11/02/2009 will be treated as period not spent on duty i.e. ‘DIES NON’ (i.e. the period shall neither be treated as period spent on duty nor constitutes a break in service).”

5. An ap