A recent landmark judgement by the Supreme Court of India involves the State of Jharkhand and a government servant in a dispute over pay during suspension revocation. The High Court’s direction to provide full pay and allowances upon suspension revocation was challenged by the State Government. The Supreme Court’s decision has significant implications for the treatment of suspended government servants and the conclusion of disciplinary proceedings. Let’s delve into the details of this important legal case.
Facts
- Single Judge directed State Government to decide on full salary payment during suspension despite pending criminal case
- High Court ordered State of Jharkhand to review representation for suspension revocation on 28 February 2013
- Division Bench upheld Single Judge’s direction to provide full pay and allowances upon suspension revocation
- Rule 97 of Jharkhand Service Code mandates full pay and allowances upon reinstatement even if disciplinary proceedings are ongoing
- State Government appealed against the direction of providing full pay and allowances upon suspension revocation
- The representation was rejected by the State Government.
- Departmental proceedings have been held in abeyance pending the criminal trial.
- Charges were framed in the criminal case against the respondent.
- A Writ Petition was filed by the respondent before the learned Single Judge.
- The respondent was placed under suspension on 14 March 2012.
- The subsistence allowance was initially paid at the rate of 50% and later increased to 75% on 29 May 2013.
- The State of Jharkhand was allotted the services of the respondent after the reorganization of States.
- The State of Bihar, where the respondent was working as a Veterinary Officer, engaged him.
- The suspension of the respondent was revoked by the State on 6 July 2015.
- Sanction was issued on 17 February 2006 for the prosecution of the respondent in the mentioned CBI case.
Analysis
- Government servants who are suspended will have their pay and allowances determined by the competent authority
- The period of absence from duty will be considered for various purposes based on the specific directive of the competent authority
- If the government servant has not been dismissed, removed, or suspended, the provisions of Rule 97 apply
- High Court misinterpreted Rule 97 by implying full pay and allowances must follow suspension being revoked.
- Rule 97 actually states that pay treatment should be decided after departmental inquiry is completed.
- High Court’s directions were contrary to Rule 97 as disciplinary proceedings are pending.
- Pay and allowances decision will be made based on conclusion of criminal trial.
- Sub-rule (2) indicates full pay and allowances if suspension is found to be ‘wholly unjustified.’
- The payment made to the respondent will be subject to the decision of the competent authority after the disciplinary proceedings.
- The State has already paid the entire pay and allowances for the suspension period to the respondent under the threat of contempt proceedings.
Also Read: CRPF Act: Validity of Rule 27 for Compulsory Retirement – Case of Head Constable vs. CRPF
Decision
- The appeal has been allowed.
- The impugned judgment and order of the High Court dated 12 April 2017 has been set aside.
- Any pending application(s) have been disposed of.
- No order as to costs has been made.
Also Read: DAMEPL vs. DMRC: Curative Petition and Arbitral Award Restoration
Case Title: THE STATE OF JHARKHAND Vs. AMRESH NARAYAN SINHA
Case Number: C.A. No.-005737-005737 / 2019
