Back
A. V. Pradeep Kumar – Appellant
Versus
Chancellor, Mahatma Gandhi University – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
VIJU ABRAHAM, J.
Petitioner has approached this Court challenging Ext.P7 order issued by the 1st respondent and for a consequential direction to the 2nd respondent to treat the period of suspension from 9.9.2016 to 31.05.2018 as duty for all purposes with all consequential benefits.
2. The petitioner is a retired Assistant Registrar (Exams) in the 2nd respondent University, who retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.05.2018 while in suspension. By Ext.P1, the 3rd respondent passed an order compulsorily retiring the petitioner from service and also directing to recover an amount of Rs.19,70,791/- with interest from the pensionary benefits equally from the delinquent officers. An appeal was preferred challenging Ext.P1 order before the 1st respondent Chancellor and the said respondent set aside Ext.P1 order granting liberty to the 2nd respondent University to recommend and continue the disciplinary proceedings. Later, by Ext.P2 order the very same punishment imposed on the petitioner as per Ext.P1 was imposed, which was challenged by the petitioner before the 1st respondent. The 1st respondent essentially taking into consideration the submission of
The authority must provide an opportunity for hearing before making decisions affecting the rights of an employee in disciplinary matters.
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.
Suspension from service - Allowances - Time passed on leave of all kinds with allowances shall not count as qualifying service, except the period of Leave Without Allowances availed of under Rule 88,....
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....
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....
The central legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation and application of Rule 54 of the Rules, emphasizing the importance of principles of natural justice in disciplinary proceedi....
The court found the punishment imposed on the petitioner to be shockingly disproportionate, emphasizing the necessity for procedural fairness and continuity of service after wrongful termination.
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
