Back
SUJOY PAUL, NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO
A. Neeraja – Appellant
Versus
High Court for the State of Telangana – Respondent
ORDER :
Sujoy Paul, J.
1. Sri K. Sudhakar Reddy, learned counsel, appeared for the petitioner and Sri Harender Pershad, learned Senior Counsel representing Sri A. Naren Rudra, learned counsel, appeared for the respondent.
2. With the consent finally heard.
3. This petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution challenges the order dated 20.10.2023 whereby the respondent- High Court has rejected the representation of the petitioner claiming that period of suspension shall be treated as spent on duty with full pay and allowances.
4. Briefly stated, the petitioner was served with a charge sheet dated 14.08.2019. The petitioner submitted her written submissions on 30.09.2019. The petitioner was placed under suspension on 31.10.2019. The enquiry report was submitted on 06.04.2022. After obtaining petitioner's response to enquiry officer's report, the punishment order dated 25.08.2022 was passed whereby the petitioner's suspension was also revoked and a minor penalty of "stoppage of one increment without cumulative effect for a period of one year" was inflicted on her. The petitioner, in furtherance of this order, was re-instated and resumed back. Since the Department did not pass any o
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.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the denial of salary for the suspension period should be in accordance with Fundamental Rules and the principles of natural justice.
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 disciplinary authority must justify the necessity of suspension; otherwise, the officer is entitled to full pay and allowances during the suspension period.
The regulation of the suspension period cannot be more adverse than the penalty imposed, and unjustified directions in the order of penalty may be subject to judicial review.
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....
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
