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.

ORDER :

MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA, J.

Heard Mr. Z. Hussain, learned counsel for the petitioner, who prays that the petitioner should be paid his arrear salary for the period from April, 2023 to February, 2024, amounting to Rs.2,87,912/-, on the ground that the petitioner’s suspension for the above stated period was unjustified.

2. The petitioner’s counsel submits that the petitioner, who is a Headmaster of 884 No. Pathimari Lower Primary School, was suspended from service pending a departmental enquiry vide order dated 08.03.2023. The petitioner was issued a show-cause-notice dated 08.07.2023, pertaining to financial anomalies of school grants, irregular attendance in class, failure to place/produce accounts related records, taxes etc. The petitioner submitted his reply to the show-cause-notice on 24.07.2023, denying the said charges.

3. As the petitioner’s suspension had been allowed to continue in violation of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Ajay Kumar Choudhury Vs. Union of India Through Its Secretary & Anr., reported in (2015) 7 SCC 291, the petitioner filed WP(C) No.5098/2023, praying for setting aside the suspension order and to reinstate him into service. In Para 21 of the judgment in Ajay Kumar Choudhury(supra), the Supreme Court has held as follows:-

“21. We, therefore, direct that the currency of a suspension order should not extend beyond three months if within this period the memorandum of charges/charge-sheet is not served on the delinquent officer/employee; if the memorandum of charges/charge-sheet is served, a reasoned order must be passed for the extension of the suspension.”

4. This Court disposed of WP(C) No.5098/2023 vide order dated 15.09.2023, by holding that in terms of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Ajay Kumar Choudhury (supra) and considering the provisions of Clause 2.1.8 of the Manual of Departmental Proceedings of the State Government in the Personnel Department dated 18.08.1981, the suspension order of the petitioner dated 08.03.2023 was not sustainable “on or from 08.06.2023.” The suspension order of the petitioner being unsustainable in law w.e.f. 08.06.2023, was set aside and a direction was issued to reinstate the petitioner in service. As the State respondents did not comply with the order dated 15.09.2023 passed in WP(C) No.5098/2023, the petitioner filed Cont. Cas(C) 732/2023. Pursuant to the order dated 15.09.2023 passed in WP(C) No.5098/2023, the petitioner was reinstated into service, vide order dated 05.02.2024.

5. In view of the petitioner being reinstated into service vide order dated 05.02.2024, the contempt petition was closed vide order dated 27.05.2024. The petitioner’s counsel submits that as the continued suspension of the petitioner from 08.06.2023 till the date of his reinstatement was unsustainable and unjustified, the petitioner would have to be paid his salary for the said period. He further submits that as the petitioner could only join his post on 07.02.2024, the petitioner would have to be paid his salary till 06.02.2024.

6. Mr. P.K. Bora, learned counsel for the Elementary Education Department submits that though this Court, in it’s order dated 15.09.2023 passed in WP(C) No.5098/2023, has held that the suspension of the petitioner w.e.f. 08.06.2023 was unsustainable/unjustified, the petitioner would be entitled to payment of his salary for the period from 08.06.2023 till 06.02.2024, only if he has not done some other work, as the normal rule of “no work no pay” will have to be applied in terms of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of The Commissioner, Karnataka Housing Board Vs. C. Muddaiah, reported in (2007) 7 SCC 689.

7. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties.

8. Para 10 of the order dated 15.09.2023 passed in WP(C) No.5098/2023 has clearly stated that the suspension of the petitioner w.e.f. 08.06.2024 was unsustainable and accordingly, the petitioner was directed to be reinstated into service by this Court. The same was no