Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Gopal S/o Sitaram Bairisal, a retired labourer from Ordnance Factory, Ambazari, filed a writ petition challenging the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Bombay Bench, dated 13th April 2015, which dismissed his Original Application No.2121 of 2011. The petitioner was deemed suspended under Fundamental Rule 54-B(3) from 2nd March 1999 following his arrest in connection with offences under Sections 147, 148, 149, and 302 of the Indian Penal Code. He was enlarged on bail on 26th May 1999, but the suspension continued until 11th February 2009, when it was revoked after his acquittal on 18th September 2008 by the Additional Sessions Judge in Sessions Trial No.319 of 2001. The petitioner retired on 30th November 2010. The respondents treated the suspension period as 'not spent on duty' and denied him full pay and allowances. The petitioner approached the CAT seeking treatment of the suspension period as duty, but the Tribunal dismissed his application. The High Court allowed the writ petition, holding that under Fundamental Rule 54-B(3), since the petitioner was acquitted on merits after a full trial and no disciplinary proceedings were pending, the period of deemed suspension must be treated as duty for all purposes. The court directed the respondents to treat the period from 2nd March 1999 to 11th February 2009 as duty and pay the petitioner full pay and allowances within three months, failing which interest at 6% per annum would accrue.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Suspension - Fundamental Rule 54-B(3) - Deemed Suspension - Acquittal on Merits - The petitioner, a labourer at Ordnance Factory, was deemed suspended under Rule 54-B(3) upon detention exceeding 48 hours in a criminal case. He was acquitted after full trial on merits. The court held that the period of suspension from 2nd March 1999 to 11th February 2009 must be treated as duty for all purposes, entitling him to full pay and allowances, as no disciplinary proceedings were pending and the acquittal was based on a full trial on merits. (Paras 1-10)
B) Service Law - Fundamental Rule 54-B(3) - Interpretation - The rule provides that where a government servant is detained in custody for a period exceeding 48 hours, he shall be deemed to have been suspended. Upon acquittal, the suspension period may be treated as duty if the acquittal is based on a full trial on merits and no disciplinary proceedings are pending. The court emphasized that the rule is beneficial and must be construed liberally to avoid injustice. (Paras 5-9)
C) Administrative Law - Central Administrative Tribunal - Judicial Review - The Tribunal's order dismissing the Original Application was set aside as it failed to consider that the petitioner's acquittal was on merits and no disciplinary proceedings were contemplated. The High Court exercised its writ jurisdiction to correct the error. (Paras 1, 10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the period of deemed suspension of a government servant, who was subsequently acquitted in a criminal trial on merits, should be treated as duty for all purposes entitling him to full pay and allowances, and whether the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal denying such benefit was sustainable.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the writ petition, set aside the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal dated 13th April 2015, and directed the respondents to treat the period of deemed suspension from 2nd March 1999 to 11th February 2009 as duty for all purposes. The respondents were ordered to pay the petitioner full pay and allowances for that period within three months from the date of the order, failing which the amount would carry interest at 6% per annum from the date of the order until payment.
Law Points
- Fundamental Rule 54-B(3)
- deemed suspension
- acquittal on merits
- full pay and allowances
- suspension period treated as duty
- no disciplinary proceedings pending
Case Details
2022 LawText (BOM) (09) 150
Writ Petition No.5319 of 2022
Dipankar Datta, CJ., Nitin W. Sambre, J.
Mr. M.I. Mourya for Petitioner; Mr. N.S. Deshpande, Assistant Solicitor General of India along with Mrs. S.N. Deshpande for Respondents
Mr. Gopal S/o Sitaram Bairisal
Union of India, through the Secretary, Ministry of Defence; The D.G.O.F./Chairman, Ordnance Factory Board; The General Manager, Ordnance Factory, Ambazari, Nagpur
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition challenging the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal dismissing the petitioner's application for treating the period of deemed suspension as duty for all purposes.
Remedy Sought
The petitioner sought a direction to treat the period of deemed suspension from 2nd March 1999 to 11th February 2009 as duty for all purposes and to pay full pay and allowances for that period.
Filing Reason
The petitioner was deemed suspended under Fundamental Rule 54-B(3) upon arrest and detention exceeding 48 hours in a criminal case. He was acquitted on merits after a full trial, but the respondents treated the suspension period as 'not spent on duty' and denied him full pay and allowances.
Previous Decisions
The Central Administrative Tribunal, Bombay Bench, Camp at Nagpur, by order dated 13th April 2015, dismissed Original Application No.2121 of 2011 filed by the petitioner.
Issues
Whether the period of deemed suspension of the petitioner from 2nd March 1999 to 11th February 2009 should be treated as duty for all purposes under Fundamental Rule 54-B(3) following his acquittal on merits.
Whether the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal dismissing the petitioner's application was sustainable in law.
Submissions/Arguments
The petitioner argued that since he was acquitted on merits after a full trial and no disciplinary proceedings were pending, the period of deemed suspension must be treated as duty for all purposes under Fundamental Rule 54-B(3).
The respondents opposed the petition, contending that the petitioner was not entitled to full pay and allowances for the suspension period as per the rules.
Ratio Decidendi
Under Fundamental Rule 54-B(3), where a government servant is deemed suspended due to detention in custody and is subsequently acquitted on merits after a full trial, and no disciplinary proceedings are pending, the period of suspension must be treated as duty for all purposes, entitling the employee to full pay and allowances. The rule is beneficial and must be construed liberally to avoid injustice.
Judgment Excerpts
The challenge in this writ petition dated 16th November 2021 to the order dated 13th April 2015 of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bombay Bench, Mumbai, Camp at Nagpur, dismissing Original Application No.2121 of 2011, is at the instance of the now septuagenarian original applicant (hereafter ‘the petitioner’, for short).
Upon registration of an FIR, the petitioner was detained in custody for a period exceeding 48 hours. This resulted in deemed suspension of the petitioner from 2nd March 1999.
The petitioner was enlarged on bail on 26th May 1999. However, the order of suspension was not revoked and the same continued to remain in operation till 11th February 2009, when such order came to be finally revoked upon an order of acquittal dated 18th September 2008 being recorded by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge in Sessions Trial No.319 of 2001.
The period of deemed suspension from 2nd March 1999 to 11th February 2009 shall be treated as duty for all purposes and the petitioner shall be entitled to full pay and allowances for the said period.
Procedural History
The petitioner was deemed suspended from 2nd March 1999 upon arrest. He was acquitted on 18th September 2008, and suspension was revoked on 11th February 2009. He retired on 30th November 2010. He filed Original Application No.2121 of 2011 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bombay Bench, Camp at Nagpur, which was dismissed on 13th April 2015. He then filed Writ Petition No.5319 of 2022 before the Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench, which was allowed on 5th September 2022.
Acts & Sections
- Indian Penal Code, 1860: 147, 148, 149, 302
- Fundamental Rules: 54-B(3)
