Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
NARENDRA KUMAR VYAS, J.
Bhimsen Mirdha S/o Shri Laybano Mirdha – Appellant
Versus
State of Chhattisgarh – Respondent
WPS No. 8844 of 2019
Decided on : 05-01-2024
Fundamental Rules - Suspension of Salary - Rule 54-B(3) - Summary of Acts and Sections: Rule 54-B(3) - The court discussed the applicability of Fundamental Rules 54B and referred to the case of M. Gopala Krishna Naidu vs State of Madhya Pradesh, reported in 1968 AIR 240. The court held that the impugned order was against the Fundamental Rules 54 and the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the mentioned case. The court also referred to Circular No. C-6/01/2003/F/3, dated 13.01.2005, which provides that if minor penalty is imposed upon the Government servant, then suspension cannot be held to be justified and the Government servant is entitled to get salary for the entire suspension period.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a sweeper at a residential school, was suspended and subsequently denied salary for the suspension period. The petitioner challenged the denial of salary through a writ petition.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the denial of salary for the suspension period was against Fundamental Rules 54 and the principles of natural justice. The subsequent punishment of withholding of one increment was also deemed as double jeopardy and quashed.
Issues: The issues revolved around the denial of salary for the suspension period, applicability of Fundamental Rules 54B, and the imposition of subsequent punishment.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the denial of salary for the suspension period was against the Fundamental Rules and the principles of natural justice. The subsequent punishment of withholding of one increment was deemed as double jeopardy and quashed.
Final Decision: The writ petition was partly allowed, quashing the denial of salary for the suspension period and the subsequent punishment of withholding of one increment.
ORDER :
1. The petitioner has filed the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 28.02.2017 (Annexure P/1) passed by the Respondent No.2 to the extent that the respondents have denied the salary to the petitioner except subsistence allowances for the period when the petitioner was in during suspension period. The petitioner has also prayed for grant of one day salary and one annual increment.
2. Brief facts as reflected from the record are that the petitioner was initially appointed as Sweeper at Eklavya Adarsh (Model) residential school Mainpat, Block Mainpart, District Sarguja. The petitioner was suspended by the Collector on the count that he was negligence towards discharge of his duty and his headquarter was changed as he was posted in the office of Assistant Commissioner Tribal Department Ambikapur. The petitioner was relieved on 13.02.2015 to join the transferred place of posting thereafter charge sheet was issued to him on 26.03.2015. The petitioner was charge-sheeted for not doing the cleaning work assigned to him and he has threatened the students for not cleaning the toilet. The petitioner submitted reply to the charge sheet on 07.04.2015 denying the allegation made in the charge sheet mainly contending that 54 toilets and 54 bathrooms have been constructed in the school and the hostel and there is shortage of supply of water as such it cannot be said that he was negligence towards discharging his duty. It is emphatically denied that he has ever forced or threatened to any student to do the cleaning work. It has also been contended that he has not taken any leave and doing the work without any break, as such he prayed for withdrawal of the charge sheet.
3. The respondent considering the reply has passed the order of punishment of withholding three increments without cumulative effect and warning was also issued on 20.07.2015 and thereafter the petitioner was posted on his earlier place of posting i.e. Eklavya Adarsh (Model) residential school Mainpat, Block Mainpart, District Sarguja.
4. The petitioner has made representation on 24.10.2016 claiming salary of the suspension period and regularization of his suspension period. It has also been contended that subsequently the petitioner remained absent on 30.12.2016, therefore, again a show cause notice was issued to him on 15.01.2017. The petitioner submitted reply to the show cause notice which was found unsatisfactory therefore, punishment of one increment without cumulative effect was passed on 01.02.2017. The respondent vide order dated 28.02.2017 has rejected the representation of the petitioner dated 24.10.2016 (Annexure P/11) and treated the suspension period as on duty. It has been further ordered that no salary for the suspension period is payable to the petitioner vide its order dated 28.02.2017. This order is being assailed by the petitioner in this writ petition.
5. The respondents have filed the return denying the allegation made in the writ petition mainly contending that the order dated 28.02.2017 is in accordance with the rules. It has been contended that looking to the conduct of the petitioner, grant of subsistence allowance during suspension period, denial of salary is legal and justified and does not warrant interference. It has been further contended that from plain reading of Rule 54 of the Chhattisgarh Fundamental Rules, it is clear that when a government servant has been suspended, is reinstated or would have been so reinstatement by the competent authority, the competent authority to order for reinstatement shall consider and make specific order with regard to pay and allowance to be paid to the employees for the period of suspension and to decide whether employee will be treated on duty or not during the said period of suspension. The respondent considering the fact that the petitioner was punished and order of withholding of three increments with cumulative effect has been passed as such the order pas
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the denial of salary for the suspension period should be in accordance with Fundamental Rules and the principles of natural justice.
The duty of the competent authority to consider and pass specific orders regarding pay, allowances, and the treatment of the suspension period as duty, and the principles of natural justice in afford....
Suspension of an employee beyond three months without a charge-sheet is unjustified, entitling the employee to arrear salary for the period of unjustified suspension.
The court ruled that a government servant's suspension period must be treated as on duty with full pay if acquitted of charges and if disciplinary proceedings result in a minor penalty.
An employee involved in a criminal case, despite subsequent acquittal, may not be entitled to full salary for a suspension period if the involvement in the crime disabled the employee from rendering ....
Upon reinstatement after suspension, the appointing authority must determine subsistence allowance and recognize the entire service length for benefits, not treating reinstatement as a fresh appointm....
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
