IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
A.Muhamed Mustaque, P. Krishna Kumar, JJ.
State Of Kerala, Represented By The Secretary, Social Justice Department – Petitioner
Versus
Haridasan N.K., S/O Kandankutty – Respondent
OP(KAT) NO. 326 OF 2018
Decided On : 09-12-2024
(A) Kerala Service Rules, 1956 - Rule 56B(3) to (5) - Suspension of government servant - Entitlement to full pay and allowances during suspension period - The court found that the suspension was unjustified as there was no necessity to keep the respondent under suspension during the disciplinary proceedings. (Paras 6, 7, 8)
(B) Disciplinary Authority - The authority must exercise discretion regarding the necessity of suspension during disciplinary proceedings, and failure to do so may entitle the officer to full pay and allowances. (Paras 6, 8)
Facts of the case:
The respondent was suspended on 21.11.2013 and reinstated on 29.06.2014 after a minor penalty was imposed. The Tribunal ordered the release of pay and allowances for the suspension period, which was challenged by the State.
Findings of Court:
The court upheld the Tribunal's order, stating that the suspension was unjustified and the respondent was entitled to full pay and allowances.
Issues: Whether the respondent was entitled to full pay and allowances during the suspension period.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the disciplinary authority must justify the necessity of suspension; otherwise, the officer is entitled to full pay and allowances.
Result: Original petition dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
A. Muhamed Mustaque, J.
The short issue in this case is whether the respondent is entitled to full pay and allowances during the period of suspension. The brief facts of this case are as follows:
2. The respondent, while serving as U.D. Clerk, Home for Mentally Deficient Children (HMDC), Kozhikode, was suspended by the proceedings of the Director of Social Justice on 21.11.2013. The suspension was on the ground that the respondent failed to produce the acquittance register and other connected records to the Directorate in order to comply with a direction given by the Kerala Administrative Tribunal. The respondent was served with the memo of charges on 10.03.2014. The enquiry was conducted and thereafter, a minor penalty of censure was imposed on him as per order dated 30.06.2014. This was appealed before the Government by the respondent. The appeal was rejected vide Annexure A6 order dated 27.06.2015. The respondent was reinstated in service on 29.06.2014. In the order passed by the Director of Social Justice while imposing the minor penalty of censure, it was ordered that the suspension period will be regularised as duty for all purposes and limited his claim to subsistence allowance only.
3. The respondent approached the Kerala Administrative Tribunal challenging this order. The Tribunal ordered that for the period of suspension from 02.12.2013 to 29.06.2014, the respondent is entitled to the release of pay and allowances. This order is questioned in this original petition by the State.
4. Heard the learned Government Pleader and the learned counsel for the respondent – Sri. K. Sudhinkumar.
5. Before considering the issue involved in this case, it is appropriate for us to refer to Rule 56B(3) to (5) of Part I of the Kerala Service Rules, 1956.
(3) Where the authority competent to order reinstatement is of the opinion that the suspension was wholly unjustified, the officer shall, subject to the provisions of sub-rule (8) be paid the full pay and allowances to which he would have been entitled, had he not been suspended:
Provided that where such authority is of the opinion that the termination of the proceedings instituted against the officer had been delayed owing to reasons directly attributable to the officer, it may after giving him an opportunity to make his representation and after considering the representation, if any, submitted by him, direct, for reasons to be recorded in writing, that the officer shall be paid for the period of such delay only such amount (not being the whole) of such pay and allowances as it may determine.
(4) In a case falling under sub-rule (3), the period of suspension shall be treated as a period spent on duty for all purposes.
(5) In cases other than those falling under sub-rules (2) and (3), the officer shall subject to the provisions of sub -rules (8) and (9) be paid such amount (not being the whole) of the pay and allowances to which he would have been entitled had he not been suspended, as the competent authority may determine, after giving notice to the officer of the quantum proposed and after considering the representation, if any, submitted by him in that connection within such period as may be specified in the notice.”
6. The competent authority has necessary power to order that the government servant will not be entitled to full pay and allowances during the period of suspension. That means, the authority will have to advert to the circumstances under which he has been suspended. If the authority finds that suspension was wholly unjustified, the officer will be entitled for full pay and allowances.
7. There are two elements which the authority will have to consider; the first one is whether the suspension was justified and the second one is whether the entire period under which the officer was kept under suspension was necessitated for disciplinary enquiry or not. There may be a situation where the disciplinary authority will have to suspend an employee. But it may not be n
The disciplinary authority must justify the necessity of suspension; otherwise, the officer is entitled to full pay and allowances during the suspension period.
A government employee acquitted on the benefit of doubt is not automatically entitled to full pay; entitlement arises only if the employee is 'acquitted of blame' under Rule 57 of the Kerala Service ....
The competent authority must decide on the suspension period; failure to do so entitles the employee to full salary for that period.
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 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 main legal point established in the judgment is the application of rule 54-B of the Fundamental Rules and the discretion of the Disciplinary Authority in justifying a suspension and determining e....
Acquittal in bribery case does not automatically entitle suspended employee to full backwages; competent authority may treat suspension as leave, applying 'no work no pay' where prosecution not by em....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.