Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
P. B. Bajanthri, Alok Kumar Pandey, JJ.
The State Of Bihar through Chief Secretary and ors. – Appellant
Versus
Yogendra Prasad Singh S/o Late Matukdhari Singh and ors. - Respondents
Letters Patent Appeal No.952 of 2019 In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.19135 of 2014
Decided On : 03-04-2024
SERVICE LAW - Disciplinary Proceedings and Pension Entitlements - Bihar Service Code, Rule 18; Bihar CCA Rules, 2005, Rule 14 - The court discussed the provisions of the Bihar Service Code and the Bihar CCA Rules, emphasizing that the withholding of increments was not part of the penalty imposed on the respondent. The court interpreted that the respondent was not entitled to increments during the suspension period, as his service record was under scrutiny. The decision clarified that while the respondent could claim notional benefits for increments, actual benefits were not applicable due to the suspension and pending inquiry.
Fact of the Case:
The appellants, the State, challenged the order dated 18.02.2019 from CWJC No. 19135 of 2014, which favored the respondent, Yogendra Prasad Singh, who was under disciplinary proceedings and had retired during the inquiry. The respondent was penalized with a 10% pension withholding for three years, and the State clarified that the suspension period would not count towards increments but would be considered for pension calculations.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the learned Single Judge erred in granting relief to the respondent based solely on the absence of a penalty for withholding increments. The court held that the respondent's suspension and the imposition of a pension penalty justified the denial of increments, as his service record was not favorable during the suspension period.
Issues: Whether the respondent was entitled to annual increments during the period of suspension and whether the learned Single Judge's order was justified in light of the disciplinary proceedings and the State's clarifications.
Ratio Decidendi: The court established that the withholding of increments was not a penalty imposed by the disciplinary authority, and that the respondent's suspension and the pending inquiry justified the denial of increments. The court emphasized the need for a thorough examination of service records before granting increments.
Final Decision: The court set aside the order dated 18.02.2019 in CWJC No. 19135 of 2014, rejected the petition, and allowed LPA No. 952 of 2019.
JUDGMENT :
P. B. BAJANTHRI, J.
On 13.03.2024, the following order was passed:-
2. Re-list this matter after three weeks and if there is no representation on behalf of 1st respondent, matter would be decided with the available records.
3. Heard I.A. No.03/2024 in LPA No. 952/2019, it relates to condonation of delay in filing LPA No.952/2019 for the reasons stated in application and affidavit delay of 136 days stands condoned.
4. Accordingly, I.A. No. 03/2024 stands allowed.
5. Re-list this matter on 03.04.2024.”
2. Today, there is no representation on behalf of the contesting respondent -Yogendra Prasad Singh.
3. Appellants-State have assailed the order dated 18.02.2019 passed in CWJC No. 19135 of 2014. Respondent – Yogendra Prasad Singh was subjected to disciplinary proceedings and he was placed under suspension on 07.10.2006. During pendency of the disciplinary proceedings, he has attained age of superannuation and retired from service on 31.12.2008. Whereas, the departmental inquiry was concluded on 12.04.2012, while imposing the penalty of withholding of 10% pension for a period of 3 years. Further, suspension period has been treated as suspension restricting to subsistence allowance only. During pendency of the CWJC No. 19135 of 2014, respondents have passed one more order vide Memo No. 1863 dated 08.09.2015 while clarifying that contesting respondent is not entitled to increment and further it is clarified that suspension period would be counted for the purpose of pension. It was subject matter of challenging CWJC No. 19135 of 2014. It is necessary to re produce portion of the learned Single Judge order viz., Para 6 & 7 and it reads as under:-
7. This Court is also in agreement with the submission of counsel for the petitioner. Since the punishment order dated 12.04.2012 did not contemplate withholding of annual increments, the petitioner would be entitled to the notional benefits on account of annual increment for the entire period of his suspension from 07.10.2006 to 31.12.2008 and for fixation of his retiral benefits by granting the said benefits notionally. It is only the actual benefits of annual increments which the petitioner cannot claim in view of the fact that for the period of suspension he has been denied benefit of payment of salary under order of punishment. Said notional benefit should be made available to the petitioner by the authorities within a period of three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order, by the authorities concerned.”
4. No doubt, withholding of increment is not one of the punishment imposed on the contesting respondent. At the same time, during pendency of departmental inquiry read with the fact that he was under suspension, in such circumstances he is not entitled to increment. Before granting annual increment service record was required to be verified. If service records are good in that event annual increment would be granted. On the other hand, contesting respondent was placed under suspension till his date of retirement, therefore, annual increment which was due in the year 2006, 200
A government servant under suspension is not entitled to annual increments during the period of suspension if their service record is under scrutiny, and the absence of a specific penalty for withhol....
Disciplinary authority's failure to follow procedural rules invalidates penalty; quoting a wrong provision does not vitiate the order.
The doctrine of laches and the law of limitation bar the agitation of stale claims after an inordinate delay, as courts will not assist litigants who have been indolent and failed to exercise due dil....
Petitioner having participated in the proceedings and not contested the penalty order passed thereof, cannot now, at a much later point of time, challenge the charge sheet which resulted in the penal....
Failure to specify treatment of suspension period mandates recognition of the period as on-duty, entitling the employee to full salary.
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
