K. G. BALAKRISHNAN, C. J.

( 1 ) THIS is an appeal directed against the judgment in Special civil Application No. 6116 of 1984. The petitioner therein is the appellant. The appellant was a Police Constable in the Police Department and disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him and he was given a show cause notice on 27. 1. 1971 and he was dismissed from service on 2. 3. 1971 and he was reinstated in service on 12. 12. 1974. The appellant was again given notice on 26. 9. 1975 and the appellant was dismissed from service on 17. 12. 1975 and the appellant was reinstated in service on 8. 7. 1982, Pursuant to show cause notice dated 17. 9. 1982, departmental proceedings culminated in some punishment and the disciplinary authority held that the period of suspension shall be treated as suspension and he was entitled to get subsistence allowance for this period. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant preferred the Special Civil Application, but the learned single Judge held that the appellant had an alternative remedy by way of Revision before the Government and as the appellant had filed the Special Civil Application without exhausting that remedy, the Special Civil Application was liable to be dismissed. That judgment is assailed before us.

( 2 ) WE heard the appellants counsel. The counsel for the appellant contended that the appeal was filed by the appellant before the State Government and it was disposed of by the I. G. of Police, exercising his delegated power granted by the Government and, therefore, a revision was not maintainable. It may be noted that the appellant was not challenging the punishment which was imposed on him. His only grievance was that the disciplinary authority was not competent to hold that the suspension period should have been treated as such and he should have regularised this period and the appellant should have been permitted to draw the salary and allowances for this period. It is submitted that the appellant was not given notice before the disciplinary authority held so. Reliance was placed by the appellant on the decision of the Supreme Court in Depot Manager, Andhra pradesh State Road Transport Corporation vs. V. Venkateswarulu and Anr. , AIR 1995 SC 258. In that case, the delinquent employee was removed from service consequent on his involvement in a criminal case. He was acquitted of the criminal charge and was reinstated. The employee claimed full salary for the period during which he was under suspension, but his claim was negatived by the authorities, but the employee challenged the said action of the authorities. In paragraph 4 of the judgment at page 260, while interpreting the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation employees (Classification, Control and Appeal) Regulation, 1967, it was observed :". . . The employee is entitled to the payment of subsistence allowance during the period of suspension under Regulation 20. Regulation 20 (3) which denied subsistence allowance to an employee suspended under Regulation 18 (l) (b) (during investigation/trial on a criminal charge) has since been deleted by the amendment. We agree with the High Court that with the deletion of Regulation 20 (3) the classification made under Regulation 21 (3) has become redundant. The high Court was, however, not justified in holding that on acquittal and reinstatement an employee become without any further scrutiny entitled to the payment of full salary for the period during which he remained under suspension. Regulations 21 (1) and 21 (2) are equally applicable to an employee who remained under suspension because of investigation/trial on a criminal charge. The competent authority is bound to examine each case in terms of regulations 21 (1) and 21 (2) and in case it comes to the conclusion that the employee concerned is not entitled to full salary for the period of suspension then the authority has to pass a reasoned order after affording an opportunity to the employee concerned. . . "

Click Here to Read the rest of this document