IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
S.M.Subramaniam, C.Kumarappan, JJ.
E.Rajkumar - Petitioner
Versus
The Registrar General, High Court, Madras - Respondent
W.P.No.17364 of 2024 and W.M.P.No.19135 of 2024
Decided On : 22-07-2024
Writ Petition - Subsistence Allowance - The court addressed the petitioner's entitlement to subsistence allowance during suspension, emphasizing compliance with procedural rules for its disbursement. It clarified that while the petitioner is entitled to the allowance, he must adhere to stipulated conditions for processing the claim.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, an Office Assistant promoted to Driver, was placed under deemed suspension following his arrest in a criminal case. He challenged the rejection of his claim for subsistence allowance.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner is entitled to subsistence allowance during suspension but must comply with the necessary rules and conditions for its processing.
Issues: Whether the petitioner is entitled to subsistence allowance during the period of suspension and what conditions must be met for its disbursement.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that entitlement to subsistence allowance exists during suspension, contingent upon compliance with procedural requirements as outlined in the relevant rules.
Result: The writ petition was disposed of, allowing the petitioner to claim subsistence allowance upon fulfilling the necessary conditions.
ORDER :
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.
Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a writ of certiorarified mandamus, calling for the records pertaining to the Official Memorandum in Roc.No.13/2023- Con.Estt.II, dated 12.10.2023, passed by the respondent and quash the same and consequently directing the respondent to sanction the subsistence allowance with arrears with effect from 12.03.2023 within a time frame.
The order of rejection dated 12.10.2023, rejecting the claim of the writ petitioner for payment of subsistence allowance is under challenge in the present writ petition.
2. The petitioner was appointed as Office Assistant and subsequently, promoted to the post of Driver. Admittedly, a criminal case was registered against the petitioner on the file of Cyber Crime Police Station, Kanniyakumari District u/s. 354 A(1)(i), 354 A (1)(ii), 354 A(1)(iv), 506 (1) IPC, 66E, 67, 67A IT Act & 4 of TNPHW Act.
3. Consequently, the petitioner was placed under deemed suspension, since he was arrested by the Police. The order of suspension issued by the High Court reveals that the Headquarters of the petitioner is at Chennai. Therefore, the petitioner should reside at Chennai during the pendency of the departmental disciplinary proceedings. A Charge Memorandum has already been issued to the petitioner. Therefore, the Disciplinary Authority has to proceed with the departmental disciplinary proceedings. It is brought to the notice of this Court that the criminal trial is also in progress. Both the proceedings are to be continued and disposed of as expeditiously as possible. As far as the subsistence allowance is concerned, the petitioner has to reside at Chennai and produce all necessary certificates/undertakings to the Registry enabling the administration to process the application and to pay subsistence allowance in accordance with the Rules in force. No doubt, the petitioner is entitled to receive subsistence allowance during the period of suspension. However, he is bound to comply with the conditions stipulated under the Rules. Thus, the petitioner is at liberty to comply with the Rules and claim subsistence allowance. In the event of submitting an application by following the due process, it is to be considered by the respondent in accordance with the Rules in force.
4. Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
Suspended employees are entitled to subsistence allowance as a matter of right, and proper disciplinary proceedings must be initiated post-conviction under Rule 17(c).
The court upheld the authority's discretion to continue suspension in the context of a pending criminal proceeding, considering the seriousness of the charges and the need for further proceedings.
Suspension without due process and a fair inquiry is illegal, violating principles of natural justice.
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.