Allahabad High Court
State Of U.P. Thru. ... vs Arun Kumar Singh & Anr. on 15 April, 2015
Author: Narayan Shukla
Bench: Narayan Shukla
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH ?AFR Chief Justice's Court Case :- SERVICE BENCH No. - 487 of 2015 Petitioner :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin.Secy.,Institutional Finance (Tax & Respondent :- Arun Kumar Singh & Anr. Counsel for Petitioner :- Standing Counsel Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Dr. Dhananjaya Yeshwant Chandrachud,Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Narayan Shukla,J.
The first respondent who was posted as an Assistant Commissioner, Trade Tax, was subjected to a disciplinary proceeding, in contemplation of which, he was placed under suspension on 1 September 2006. The order of suspension was stayed by a learned Single Judge of this Court on 6 October 2006 in a writ petition (Service Bench No.1285 of 2006). Following the order of stay, the suspension was revoked on 27 November 2006. During the course of the disciplinary proceedings, the disciplinary authority inflicted upon the first respondent a minor penalty of stoppage of one annual increment for a temporary period of one year together with a censure. A notice to show cause was issued to the first respondent on 5 February 2008 to explain why the period of suspension should not be treated as not being spent on duty so as to deprive the first respondent of his salary for the period of suspension. The first respondent submitted a reply, after which, an order was passed by the disciplinary authority on 11 April 2008, by which the period of suspension was treated as not being spent on duty. The first respondent was held to be entitled only to the payment of subsistence allowance and not to the entire salary.
The first respondent filed a claim petition which was dismissed by the State Public Services Tribunal on 27 January 2012. The first respondent thereafter filed a review petition, which has been allowed by the Tribunal, by its judgment and order dated 11 February 2014 which is impugned in these proceedings.
Rule 4 of the Uttar Pradesh Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999, inter alia, provide as follows:
?4. Suspension.-(1) A Government servant against whose conduct an inquiry is contemplated, or is proceeding may be placed under suspension pending the conclusion of the inquiry in the discretion of the appointing authority:
Provided that suspension should not be resorted to unless the allegations against the Government servant are so serious that in the event of their being established may ordinarily warrant major penalty.?
Hence under Rule 4, the appointing authority is conferred with a discretion to place a Government servant under suspension in contemplation of a disciplinary inquiry. However, under the proviso, the suspension is not to be resorted to unless the allegations are so serious that in the event of their being established, they may ordinarily warrant a major penalty.
Rule 54-B of the Financial Hand Book provides as follows:
?54-B. (1) When a Government servant who has been suspended is reinstated or would have been so reinstated but for his retirement on superannuation while under suspension, the authority competent to order reinstatement shall consider and make a specific order -
(a) regarding the pay and allowances to be paid to the Government servant for the period of suspension ending with reinstatement or the date of his retirement or superannuation as the case may be; and
(b) whether or not the said period shall be treated as a period spent on duty.?
Under clause (3) of Rule 54-B, it has been stipulated that when the authority competent to order reinstatement is of the opinion that the suspension was wholly unjustified, the Government servant 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. Sub-rule (4) provides that in a case falling under sub-rule (3), the period of suspension shall be treated as a period spent on duty for all purposes. Sub-rule (5) provides that in cases other than those falling under sub-rules (2) and (3), the Government servant shall 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. These provisions make it clear that where the authority which awards reinstatement is of the opinion that the suspension was wholly unjustified, the Government servant would be paid the full pay and allowances to which he would have been entitled had he not been suspended.
In the present case, the admitted position is that during the course of the disciplinary inquiry, only a minor penalty of a censure and withholding of increments for one year temporarily was awarded. As we have noted earlier, the proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 4 of the Uttar Pradesh Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999 clearly stipulates that suspension should not be resorted to unless the allegations against the Government servant are so serious that in the event of their being established, ordinarily a major penalty would be warranted.
In the present case, admittedly, only a minor penalty was awarded. In the conspectus of the facts of the present case, the Tribunal's order exercising its jurisdiction and review and recalling its earlier order does not call for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution. The Tribunal has, in consequence, directed the payment of the balance of the salary and allowances due to the first respondent.
Having due regard to the nature of the charges and all the facts and circumstances, as found established in the disciplinary proceeding, this order of the Tribunal does not warrant interference. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
Order Date :- 15.4.2015 VMA (Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, C.J.) (S.N. Shukla, J.)