Full Wages For Suspension Period Only Granted Upon Total Exoneration Or Unjustified Action:Jharkhand HC

Background Facts

The appellant was appointed as Assistant Operator (Electrical) in the Damodar Valley Corporation in the year 1995. He was married on 11th July 2000. Later, a criminal case was instituted against him due to a matrimonial dispute. Therefore, the employee was placed under suspension.

A memorandum of charges was issued against him. It alleged non-disclosure of marriage to the Corporation, demand of dowry, desertion of his wife, and leaving headquarters during suspension without permission. An enquiry was conducted and the employee was found guilty of two charges. The disciplinary authority imposed a minor penalty of withholding of one increment without cumulative effect for a period of one year. His appeal was dismissed.

The employee remained under suspension from 25th October 2002 to 1st May 2007. He was paid subsistence allowance. Later the criminal case ended in a compromise. Thereafter, the disciplinary authority passed an order directing that the entire suspension period be treated as non-duty.

Aggrieved, the employee filed a petition. The single judge declined to interfere with the punishment as well as the order treating the suspension period as non-duty. Being aggrieved by the order, the employee filed the Letters Patent Appeal before the Jharkhand High Court.

It was argued by the employee employee that the criminal case ended in a compromise and he was exonerated from the criminal charges, however, the respondents still issued the order treating the suspension period as non-duty. It was argued that he would not be paid anything other than the subsistence allowances already received.

It was further argued by the employee that he had not committed any serious misconduct under the Damodar Valley Corporation Regulation because whenever he left the headquarters, he gave proper information to the authority.

It was further contended that he was suspended due to a departmental enquiry because of the criminal case arising out of a matrimonial dispute and not due to any misconduct in relation to discharge of his duties. The employee submitted that denial of full pay for suspension period was not justified, because the suspension was revoked on 1st May 2007 but the departmental enquiry remained pending until 12th March 2009, which delay was attributable to the respondents.

On the other hand, it was argued by the respondents that the delay in conclusion of the disciplinary proceedings was solely attributable to the employee himself as he did not cooperate in the proceedings and did not attend the enquiry proceedings.

It was further contended that the competent authority had neither completely exonerated the employee nor held the suspension to be wholly unreasonable. Regulation 100 of the DVC Service Regulations, 1957 requires that employee should be completely exonerated and suspension should be wholly unreasonable for the employee to be allowed to receive the difference between full pay and subsistence allowance.

The respondents further submitted that the employee was only eligible to receive the proportion of pay or allowance as the competent authority may direct. The employee was not entitled to receive the difference between full pay and subsistence allowance for the suspension period.

Findings and Observations of the Court

It was observed that with regard to the charge of leaving headquarters without permission, the Enquiry Officer found that there was no material on record to establish that the employee had obtained prior permission from the competent authority before leaving the headquarters. Therefore the requirement of obtaining prior permission was not satisfied and accordingly the charge stood proved.

It was further observed that with regard to the order of punishment of withholding of one increment for a period of one year, the punishment was not very harsh and the Single Judge had rightly declined to interfere with the finding of the disciplinary authority.

It was observed that the suspension period from 25.10.2002 to 01.05.2007 was rightly treated as non-duty, because the employee's own actions led to his suspension and prevented the employer from using his services.

Regulation 100 of the DVC Service Regulations, 1957 was examined by the Division Bench which states that an employee, who has been suspended and is subsequently reinstated, would be entitled to the difference between full pay and allowances and the subsistence allowance already paid, only in a situation where the competent authority records a finding that the employee has been fully exonerated or that the suspension was wholly unjustified. In all other cases, the competent authority has discretion to grant such proportion of pay and allowances as it may deem fit.

It was held by the court that the employee was not fully exonerated of the charges. Also he was found guilty of certain charges in the departmental proceeding and was given a minor penalty. It was further observed by the court that the competent authority had not held that the order of suspension was wholly unjustified.

It was held by the Division Bench that the case of the employee fell within Regulation 100, wherein the competent authority is empowered to determine the extent of pay and allowances admissible for the suspension period. Therefore, the competent authority had exercised such power and directed that the suspension period should be treated as non-duty.

It was held that the employee was neither fully exonerated nor the suspension was held to be wholly unjustified, therefore, he cannot claim the difference between full pay and subsistence allowance for the period. Further, the employee would only be entitled to such proportion of pay and allowances as determined by the competent authority

With the aforesaid observations, the Single Judge's order was upheld by the Division Bench. Consequently, the appeal filed by the employee was dismissed by the Division Bench.

Case Name : Gajendra Prasad v. Damodar Valley Corporation & Ors.

Case No. : L.P.A. No.650 of 2022

Counsel for the Appellant : Atanu Banerjee, Advocate

Counsel for the Respondents : Srijit Choudhary, Advocate