Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, a retired teacher, challenged the order of the Additional Commissioner, Amravati, which dismissed his appeal and treated the period of his suspension pending enquiry as suspension only. The petitioner had been suspended during a criminal prosecution and departmental enquiry. He was acquitted in the criminal case, but the disciplinary authority found the charges partly proved and imposed a punishment of permanently deducting 15% of his monthly pension. The appellate authority upheld the punishment and regularized the suspension period as suspension. The petitioner argued that since he was acquitted in the criminal case and the misconduct was not fully established, the suspension period should be treated as duty period. The respondents contended that the disciplinary authority had found charges partly proved, and the regularization of suspension as suspension was not a punishment. The court, after hearing both sides, dismissed the petition, holding that when charges are partly proved, the suspension period cannot be treated as duty period, and the regularization as suspension is not a punishment. The court relied on the judgments in L. K. Verma v. HMT Ltd. and Bhaurao v. Nanded Zilla Parishad, but found them inapplicable as the facts were different. The court upheld the order of the appellate authority.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Suspension - Regularization of Suspension Period - Disciplinary Proceedings - Petitioner was suspended during criminal prosecution and departmental enquiry - After acquittal in criminal case, disciplinary authority found charges partly proved and imposed punishment of permanent deduction of 15% pension - Appellate authority treated suspension period as suspension only - Held that when charges are partly proved, suspension period cannot be treated as duty period and regularization as suspension is not a punishment (Paras 1-4).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the period of suspension pending criminal prosecution and disciplinary enquiry can be regularized as suspension only when the petitioner was acquitted in criminal case but charges in departmental enquiry were partly proved.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the order of the Additional Commissioner dated 24th September, 2003 and the regularization of the suspension period as suspension only.
Law Points
- Suspension period regularization
- Disciplinary proceedings
- Criminal prosecution acquittal effect
- Punishment proportionality
Case Details
2018 LawText (BOM) (03) 116
Writ Petition No.1348 of 2004
B.P. Dharmadhikari, Arun D. Upadhye
Shri K. V. Bhoskar for petitioner, Ms. N. P. Mehta for respondent No.1, Shri Vinay Dahat h/f Shri J.B. Kasat for respondent No.2
Shri Vitthal s/o Mahadeorao Pachghare
Additional Commissioner, Amravati Division, Amravati and Zilla Parishad, Amravati
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging order of Additional Commissioner dismissing appeal and treating suspension period as suspension only.
Remedy Sought
Petitioner sought quashing of order dated 24th September, 2003 passed by Additional Commissioner and direction to treat suspension period as duty period.
Filing Reason
Petitioner was suspended during criminal prosecution and departmental enquiry; after acquittal in criminal case, disciplinary authority imposed punishment of permanent deduction of 15% pension; appellate authority upheld punishment and regularized suspension as suspension.
Previous Decisions
Chief Executive Officer passed order on 12th February, 2003 imposing punishment; Additional Commissioner dismissed appeal on 24th September, 2003.
Issues
Whether the period of suspension can be regularized as suspension only when the petitioner was acquitted in criminal case but charges in departmental enquiry were partly proved.
Whether the punishment of permanent deduction of 15% pension is sustainable.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner argued that misconduct not fully established, suspension period could not be regularized as suspension only; suspension was only for criminal prosecution and he was acquitted, so punishment set aside and suspension must fall.
Respondents argued that disciplinary authority found charges partly proved, punishment of 15% pension cut was imposed; regularization of suspension as suspension is not a punishment.
Ratio Decidendi
When charges in a departmental enquiry are partly proved, the period of suspension cannot be treated as duty period, and regularization of suspension as suspension is not a punishment. Acquittal in criminal case does not automatically entitle the employee to treat suspension period as duty period if departmental proceedings result in a finding of guilt.
Judgment Excerpts
Short submission of Shri Bhoskar, learned counsel on behalf of petitioner is the misconduct has not been established fully and hence, period of suspension could not have been regularized as suspension only.
They submit that the Disciplinary Authority has found charges partly proved and therefore, a punishment of permanently deducting 15% of pension payable monthly, has been inflicted.
Procedural History
Petitioner was suspended during criminal prosecution and departmental enquiry. He was acquitted in criminal case. Disciplinary authority (Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad) on 12th February, 2003 imposed punishment of permanent deduction of 15% pension. Petitioner appealed to Additional Commissioner, who dismissed appeal on 24th September, 2003 and regularized suspension period as suspension. Petitioner then filed Writ Petition No.1348 of 2004 before Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench.
Acts & Sections
- Constitution of India: Articles 226, 227
