Ritesh Ranjan
Asked December 15, 2016

suspension of service

  • 2 Answers
  • 939 Views

Respected Sir/ Madam, I am a Central Government of India servant. In the year 2012 a Criminal Complaint U/s 498A, 323 & 506 was lodged against me by my wife. I was arrested by the police and had to remain for 118 days in judicial custody. I was suspended during this period and was in receipt of subsistence allowance. After getting bail my suspension was revoked. I joined the service. In the year 2015 Hon'ble High Court quashed the case based on mutual compromise between me and my wife. I submitted the order of the court to my office. The Disciplinary Authority after issuing a show cause and receiving my representation against the same has decided to TREAT THE PERIOD OF SUSPENSION (118 DAYS) BE AS SUCH IN ACCORDANCE WITH FR 54-B AND THE PAYMENT RESTRICTED TO SUBSISTENCE ALLOWANCE ALREADY DRAWN BY ME citing it was not an 'honourable acquittal' but a 'compromise settlement' and the charges levied against me were serious. My Humble query is : i) Is the decision of Disciplinary Authority good in the eyes of law ? ii) What may be implications / affect of “TREAT THE PERIOD OF SUSPENSION (118 DAYS) BE AS SUCH IN ACCORDANCE WITH FR 54-B AND THE PAYMENT RESTRICTED TO SUBSISTENCE ALLOWANCE ALREADY DRAWN” on my career iii) Will approaching the Hon'ble CAT be fruitful or can the Hon’ble High Court be approached directly? Kindly guide and help me.

Answers 2

The reasoning of the disciplinary authority though logical is not based on equity.

CAT or the HC can only be decided after perusing all your documents.

You may choose to personally contact if you so desire.

Adv Atul

Agree Comment 0 Agrees almost 4 years ago

The Rule 54 B to which you are referring to, is different for different States. For the sake of convenience we are relying on the Fundamental Rules released by the Government of Madhya Pradesh. Kindly check if the rule applicable in your State is the same. The answer may vary depending upon the wording of the rule. Kindly share more details on the Rule for a clear answer.

Fundamental Rules 54 B released by the MP Government , it states that, if the employee is fully exonerated, the period of suspension shall be treated as duty for all purposes and he shall be paid full pay and allowances he is entitled.”

Now, the usage of the term ‘fully exonerated’ means that the drafters wanted to make it very clear that unless you have been acquitted in the right and fair manner, this rule  is not applicable to you. This means that you are not entitled to the full pay and allowances unless you are fully exonerated. It will be difficult for you to challenge the order of the Disciplinary Authority as they are complying with the regulation regulating your service. Therefore, from the facts given by you, it seems difficult to establish a ground on which you can challenge the order before the Central Administrative Tribunal.

Coming to your second question, you have already been suspended and been in judicial custody for 118 days. So, you have been partially punished for an offence for which you were neither acquitted nor convicted, the punishment seems reasonable and within the law and Art. 20(2) of the Constitution of India, 1950 states that a person cannot be punished twice for the same offence which means that it really shouldn’t impact your career as of now. But, Art. 20(2) doesn’t prevent the authorities from taking into considerations past criminal records. So, in case criminal allegations of similar nature are levelled against you in the future, the Court might take the present case into consideration too. You need to realize that a criminal case is versus the State and not the individual who informs or complaints, so the fact that you had a compromise with your wife isn’t so significant that you’re entitled to complete allowance for those 118 days and the case should not impact your career unless there are other charges levelled against you and in that case, the present case will be taken into consideration.

Reference:

http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2014-12-02/news/56649220_1_sultan-khan-police-force-madhya-pradesh-police

 

http://www.mptreasury.org/mpt/public/policyrules/fr/frch8.pdf

 

 

Reseached by - Ashwini Panwar, Lawfarm Team

Agree Comment 0 Agrees almost 4 years ago

Please Login or Register to Submit Answer

Directory ads
Need to talk to a lawyer?

Book a phone consultation with a top-rated lawyer on Lawfarm.