Paying Only Subsistence Allowance To Employee Suspended Due To Criminal Case And Later Acquitted Without Dept Proceedings Amounts To Punishment: Rajasthan HC

The Rajasthan High Court held that when an employee was suspended during pendency of proceedings under the Prevention of Corruption Act (“PC Act”) in which he was acquitted, in absence of any departmental proceedings against him, restricting his pay during suspension period to only subsistence allowance amounted to punishing such employee which could not be allowed. Court said:“The Tribunal rightly concluded that there was no departmental proceedings initiated and after acquittal in the criminal case, there was no occasion to restrict the pay during suspension period to the subsistence allowance. In other words, in absence of any departmental enquiry and any punishment order thereof by the department and after acquittal in criminal case the employee cannot be punished by restricting the pay during the period of suspension.”The division bench of Justice Avneesh Jhingan and Justice Pramil Kumar Mathur was hearing a petition against the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal wherein CAT had set aside the order of Department of Telecommunications, New Delhi that allowed paying only subsistence allowance to an employee who was suspended during pendency of proceedings under PC Act but was ultimately acquitted. The employee was caught red-handed in a trap set up under the PC Act. During the pendency of proceedings, he was suspended twice by the State. The employee was ultimately acquitted in the case under the PC Act and no disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the employee. Despite that, the Department of Telecommunications passed an order that justified the suspension of the employee and payment of only subsistence allowance to him for the suspension period. Against this order, the original application was filed by the employee wherein CAT directed the State to treat his suspension as on duty and arrears to be paid to him after fixing pay and allowance. After hearing the contentions, the Court opined that there was no dispute about the proposition that suspension of an employee for pendency of investigation, enquiry or trial in a criminal offence was not a punishment. It was observed that, “In case in hand, employee was suspended due to pendency of the investigation under the PC Act and ultimately he was acquitted. In absence of any departmental proceedings against the employee the order dated 30.06.2022 concluding that the suspension was justified and payment to the employee be restricted to the subsistence allowance tantamounts to punishing the employee inspite of the acquittal in the criminal case.”Accordingly, the petition was dismissed, and the order of the CAT was upheld. Title: Chairman and Managing Director, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited & Ors. v Ram Niwas Sharma & Ors.Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 90Click Here To Read/Download Order

Paying Only Subsistence Allowance To Employee Suspended Due To Criminal Case And Later Acquitted Without Dept Proceedings Amounts To Punishment: Rajasthan HC

Nupur Agrawal

Tags