Entitlement to compensation during suspension and consideration of regularization of suspension period under Rule 12(3) of Department of Posts GDS (Conduct and Employment) Rules 2001.

P.K. Misra, J.

Heard Mr. A.P. Balasubramanian for the petitioners and Mr.C.K.M.Appaji for the first respondent.

2. The present respondent No.1 was the Gramin Dak Sevak (Mail Deliverer) under the present petitioners. An order of suspension namely "put off duty", was passed on 29. 2004. It was indicated in such order that he will get ex gratia compensation equal to 25% of his TRCA together with admissible DA in accordance with Rule 12(3) of the Department of Posts GDS (Conduct and Employment) Rules 2001. Subsequently, even before the initiation of formal disciplinary proceeding by framing a charge, the suspension order was revoked by order dated 38. 2005. Thereafter, the present respondent No.1 filed O.A.No.333 of 2007 for issuing a direction to the present petitioners to regularize the period of put off duty from 29. 2004 to 38. 2005. In such Original Application, the present petitioners took a stand that the departmental proceeding was contemplated, and the matter was under preliminary investigation, and therefore, the question of regularization of the period would be considered only after the departmental proceeding.

3. The Tribunal by taking into consideration the fact that no departmental proceeding had formally been initiated, inasmuch as the formal charge had not been framed and there was no fault on the part of the applicant (present respondent No.1) regarding the initiation of the departmental proceeding, directed that for the entire period, the concerned person should be given the full payment. Such order is questioned in the present writ petition at the instance of the department.

4. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that as per Rule 12(3) of the Department of Posts GDS (Conduct and Employment) Rules 2001, during the period of suspension, the concerned employee will be paid compensation of 25% for the first 90 days, and thereafter, such amount can be increased upto 50% at the discretion of the concerned authorities, and therefore, there was no justification for the Tribunal to pass an order regarding payment of the entire amount. It is also brought to our notice that subsequently, a charge memo has been issued on 30.5.2008.

5. Learned Counsel for the first respondent on the other hand submitted that at the time when suspension order was passed, the departmental proceeding had not been actually initiated, and charge memo had not been issued, and therefore, the Tribunal was justified in passing the order.

6. Having heard the Counsel for both the parties, we feel that the order of the Tribunal is required to be modified in order to make it consistent with Rule 12 which is quoted hereunder.

"12. Put-off duty

.(1) The Appointing Authority or any authority to which the Appointing Authority is subordinate or any other authority empowered in that behalf by the Government, by general or special order, may put a Sevak off duty:

.(a) Where a disciplinary proceeding against him is contemplated or is pending; or

.(b) Where a case against him in respect of any criminal offence is under investigation, enquiry or trial:

.Provided that in cases involving fraud or embezzlement, the Sevak holding any post specified in the Schedule to these rules may be put-off duty by the Inspector of Post Offices or the Assistant Superintendent of Post Offices of the Sub-Division, as the case may be, under immediate intimation to the Appointing Authority.

.(2) An order made by the Inspector of Post Offices or the Assistant Superintendent of Post Offices as the case may be, of the Sub-Division under sub-rule (1) shall cease to be effective on the expiry of fifteen days from the date of such order unless earlier confirmed or cancelled by the Appointing Authority or the authority to which the Appointing Authority is subordinate.

.(3) A Sevak shall be entitled per month for the period of put-off duty to an amount of compensation as ex gratia equal to 25% of his/her Time Related Continuity Allowance together with admissible D