Case Note & Summary
The dispute concerned non-payment of salary for the suspension period of a Lab Attendant employed by an aided Ayurved Mahavidyalaya. The petitioner had been working as a Lab Attendant with respondent no. 2 since June 1997. Respondent no. 1 was the State of Maharashtra and respondent no. 3 was the Assistant Director of Ayurved, Pune. On 16.09.2019, respondent no. 2 suspended the petitioner with retrospective effect from 05.09.2019, based on a letter dated 10.09.2019 from the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Anti-Corruption Bureau, Ahmednagar, and the registration of Crime No. 870 of 2019 under the Prevention of Corruption Act. No charge sheet was served and no departmental enquiry was initiated. The petitioner challenged the suspension in Writ Petition No. 5661 of 2020 before the Bombay High Court. On 27.10.2021, a coordinate bench disposed of that earlier petition, recording that respondent no. 2 had withdrawn the suspension vide communication dated 26.10.2021 and the petitioner had submitted a joining report. The petitioner resumed duty on 26.10.2021 and was paid regular salary thereafter, but he was not paid legal dues for the suspension period from 05.09.2019 to 25.10.2021. He therefore filed the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking directions to pay outstanding salary with interest at 12% per annum and to pay regular salary. Respondent no. 3 contended that respondent no. 2 never obtained prior permission as required by Circular dated 03.06.1998 before suspending the petitioner, that respondent no. 3 was not concerned with the petitioner's performance of duty, and that the responsibility to pay legal dues lay with respondent no. 2. Respondent no. 2 contended that it had sought guidance from respondent no. 3 and the Director of Ayush but received no response, and therefore respondent no. 3 should be liable. The High Court examined the Standard Code Rules, 1984, especially Rules 2(6), 24(5) and 45. Rule 45 permits suspension of non-teaching staff when a criminal case is under investigation, but it also provides that suspension shall not be ordered unless there is a prima facie case or reason to believe continuance would cause embarrassment or hamper investigation. Rule 24(5) requires the competent authority ordering reinstatement to make a specific order regarding the period being treated as duty or leave and regarding pay and allowances. The Court found that respondent no. 2 was the appointing authority, itself issued the suspension order, and itself revoked it without any departmental enquiry. Respondent no. 3 played no role in suspending or reinstating the petitioner. Respondent no. 2 also failed to obtain prior permission from respondent no. 3 as required by the Circular dated 03.06.1998. When an employee's suspension is revoked without any departmental enquiry, the employee is normally entitled to full salary and allowances for the period of suspension, treating that period as duty. Accordingly, the Court held respondent no. 2 liable to pay all legal dues including salary for the suspension period from 05.09.2019 to 25.10.2021, but limited interest to 6% per annum instead of the claimed 12%. The Court directed payment within three months, made the rule absolute, and made no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Suspension and Reinstatement - Non-teaching staff of aided Ayurved college - Standard Code Rules, 1984, Rule 45(c) - Suspension based on registration of criminal case without charge sheet or enquiry - Employer itself issued and revoked suspension - Held that when suspension is revoked without departmental enquiry, employee is normally entitled to full salary and allowances for suspension period and period to be treated as duty (Paras 9-12). B) Service Law - Liability to pay salary during suspension - Appointing authority/employer - Standard Code Rules, 1984, Rules 24(5), 45 - Respondent no. 2 was appointing authority, suspended without prior permission under Circular dated 03.06.1998 and revoked without enquiry - Respondent no. 3 played no role - Held respondent no. 2 liable to pay legal dues including salary with interest (Paras 10-13). C) Writ Jurisdiction - Mandamus for arrears of salary - Article 226 Constitution of India - Petitioner sought direction to pay outstanding salary and interest - High Court directed respondent no. 2 to pay all legal dues including salary from 05-09-2019 to 25-10-2021 with 6% per annum within 3 months - Held interest at 6% not 12% (Paras 2, 13-14).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the petitioner was entitled to salary and allowances for the suspension period after his suspension was revoked without any departmental enquiry; which respondent was liable to pay the legal dues; and what rate of interest was payable.
Final Decision
Writ petition disposed of with direction to respondent no. 2 to pay all legal dues including salary of petitioner from 05.09.2019 till 25.10.2021 with interest at 6% per annum within three months. Rule made absolute. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Rule 45 of Standard Code Rules
- 1984 permits suspension of non-teaching staff if criminal case is under investigation but requires prima facie case
- Rule 24(5) requires competent authority to make specific order on pay and allowances upon reinstatement
- employer who suspends without prior permission under Circular dated 03.06.1998 and revokes without departmental enquiry is liable to pay full salary for suspension period treating it as duty
- appointing authority not entitled to shift liability to education department when it played no role
