LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a suspended government employee is automatically entitled to full pay and allowances upon revocation of suspension, even if disciplinary proceedings are pending.
CASE TYPE: Service Law
Case Name: State of Jharkhand & Anr vs. Amresh Narayan Sinha
[Judgment Date]: 22 July 2019
Date of the Judgment: 22 July 2019
Citation: 2019 INSC 702
Judges: Dr. Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, J and Indira Banerjee, J
Can a government employee automatically receive full pay and allowances after their suspension is revoked, even if disciplinary proceedings are still ongoing? The Supreme Court addressed this question in a recent case, clarifying the interpretation of service rules regarding suspended employees. The Court held that full pay and allowances are not automatic upon revocation of suspension and the competent authority has to decide after the conclusion of the disciplinary proceedings. The judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench of Dr. Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, J and Indira Banerjee, J, with the opinion authored by Dr. Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, J.
Case Background
The respondent, Amresh Narayan Sinha, was a Veterinary Officer initially employed by the State of Bihar. Following the reorganization of states in June 2005, his services were transferred to the State of Jharkhand. In February 2006, the State sanctioned his prosecution in a CBI case (RC 5(A) 2005-Pet) involving charges under the Penal Code and the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
In anticipation of disciplinary proceedings, the respondent was placed under suspension on 14 March 2012. Subsequently, on 11 March 2013, he was formally notified about the initiation of departmental proceedings based on the same charges. The High Court intervened on 28 February 2013, directing the State of Jharkhand to reconsider the respondent’s request to revoke his suspension, which was ultimately rejected by the State Government.
Initially, the respondent received a subsistence allowance of 50% of his salary, which was later increased to 75% on 29 May 2013. The departmental proceedings were put on hold pending the outcome of the criminal trial. The respondent was formally charged in the criminal case, and the trial is currently underway. On 6 July 2015, the State revoked the respondent’s suspension. Following this, the respondent filed a Writ Petition, and on 18 July 2016, a Single Judge directed the State Government to grant full salary for the suspension period, irrespective of the pending criminal case. This directive was upheld by the Division Bench on 12 April 2017.
Timeline:
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| June 2005 | Respondent’s services allotted to State of Jharkhand. |
| 17 February 2006 | Sanction issued for respondent’s prosecution in CBI case. |
| 14 March 2012 | Respondent placed under suspension. |
| 11 March 2013 | Respondent informed of departmental proceedings. |
| 28 February 2013 | High Court directs State to consider revocation of suspension. |
| 29 May 2013 | Subsistence allowance increased to 75%. |
| 6 July 2015 | State revokes respondent’s suspension. |
| 18 July 2016 | Single Judge directs full salary for suspension period. |
| 12 April 2017 | Division Bench affirms Single Judge’s order. |
| 22 July 2019 | Supreme Court allows the appeal. |
Course of Proceedings
The respondent initially filed a writ petition before a Single Judge of the High Court, seeking full salary for the suspension period, regardless of the pending criminal case. The Single Judge ruled in favor of the respondent, directing the State Government to pay full salary for the suspension period. The State appealed this decision before a Division Bench of the High Court. The Division Bench upheld the Single Judge’s order, stating that Rule 97 of the Jharkhand Service Code, 2001, mandates full pay and allowances upon revocation of suspension, even if departmental proceedings are pending. Aggrieved by this, the State of Jharkhand appealed to the Supreme Court.
Legal Framework
The core legal framework in this case is Rule 97 of the Jharkhand Service Code, 2001. This rule governs the pay and allowances of a government servant who has been dismissed, removed, or suspended and subsequently reinstated. The relevant portions of Rule 97 are:
“Rule-97(1) When a Government servant who has been dismissed, removed, or suspended, reinstated, the authority competent to order the reinstatement shall consider and make specific order –
(a) regarding the pay and allowances to be paid to the Government servant for the period of his absence from duty, and
(b) Whether or not the said period shall be treated as a period spent on duty.
(2)Whether the authority mentioned in sub-rule (1), is of opinion that the Government servant has been fully exonerated, or in the case of suspension, that it was wholly unjustified, the Government servant shall be given full pay and allowance to which he would have been entitled has he not been dismissed, removed or suspended, as the case may be.
(3) In other cases, the Government servant shall be given such proportion of such pay and allowances as such competent authority may prescribe:
Provided that the payment of allowances under Clause (2) or Clause (3) shall be subject to all other conditions under which such allowance are admissible.
(4) In a case falling under Clause (2) the period of absence from duty shall be treated as a period spent on duty for all purposes.
(5) In a case falling under clause the period of absence from duty shall not be treated as a period spent on duty, unless such competent authority specifically directs that it shall be so treated for any specified purpose.
Provided that if the Government servant so desires such authority may direct that the period of absence from duty shall be converted into leave of any kind due and admissible to the Government servant.”
The Supreme Court noted that sub-rule (1) requires the competent authority to make a specific order regarding pay and allowances and whether the period of suspension should be treated as duty. Sub-rule (2) applies only when the suspension is found to be “wholly unjustified,” in which case the employee is entitled to full pay and allowances. The Court emphasized that the High Court misinterpreted Rule 97 by assuming that full pay and allowances are automatically granted upon revocation of suspension.
Arguments
Arguments of the State of Jharkhand (Appellant):
- The State argued that the High Court misinterpreted Rule 97 of the Jharkhand Service Code.
- The State contended that the rule does not mandate automatic full pay and allowances upon revocation of suspension.
- The State submitted that a decision on pay and allowances should be made after the conclusion of departmental proceedings, as per Rule 97(1).
- The State highlighted that the disciplinary proceedings were still pending and hence, the decision on pay and allowances should be deferred until the conclusion of the proceedings.
Arguments of Amresh Narayan Sinha (Respondent):
- The respondent argued that Rule 97 of the Jharkhand Service Code mandates full pay and allowances upon revocation of suspension.
- The respondent contended that since the suspension was revoked, he is entitled to full pay and allowances for the suspension period.
- The respondent relied on the High Court’s interpretation of Rule 97, which favored the automatic grant of full pay and allowances upon revocation of suspension.
The innovativeness of the argument by the respondent was that he tried to interpret the rule in such a way that it would benefit him by seeking full pay and allowances upon revocation of suspension, even if the disciplinary proceedings were still ongoing.
Submissions of Parties
| Submission | Sub-Submissions |
|---|---|
| State of Jharkhand (Appellant) |
|
| Amresh Narayan Sinha (Respondent) |
|
Issues Framed by the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame specific issues. However, the core issue before the court was:
- Whether the High Court was correct in holding that Rule 97 of the Jharkhand Service Code mandates full pay and allowances upon revocation of suspension, even if departmental proceedings are pending.
Treatment of the Issue by the Court
The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues
| Issue | Court’s Decision |
|---|---|
| Whether the High Court was correct in holding that Rule 97 of the Jharkhand Service Code mandates full pay and allowances upon revocation of suspension, even if departmental proceedings are pending. | The Supreme Court held that the High Court misconstrued Rule 97. The Court clarified that full pay and allowances are not automatic upon revocation of suspension. The competent authority must decide on pay and allowances after the conclusion of disciplinary proceedings. |
Authorities
The Supreme Court did not rely on any specific case laws or books in this judgment. The primary authority considered was Rule 97 of the Jharkhand Service Code, 2001.
| Authority | How it was used by the Court |
|---|---|
| Rule 97 of the Jharkhand Service Code, 2001 | The Court interpreted the rule to mean that full pay and allowances are not automatic upon revocation of suspension. The competent authority has to decide on pay and allowances after the conclusion of the departmental proceedings. |
Judgment
How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?
| Party | Submission | Court’s Treatment |
|---|---|---|
| State of Jharkhand | High Court misinterpreted Rule 97; full pay is not automatic; decision on pay should follow departmental proceedings. | The Court agreed with the State’s submissions, holding that the High Court had indeed misinterpreted Rule 97. The Court clarified that full pay and allowances are not automatic upon revocation of suspension. |
| Amresh Narayan Sinha | Rule 97 mandates full pay upon revocation; suspension revoked, hence full pay due. | The Court rejected the respondent’s submissions, stating that Rule 97 does not mandate automatic full pay upon revocation of suspension. |
How each authority was viewed by the Court?
The Court relied on the interpretation of Rule 97 of the Jharkhand Service Code, 2001* to hold that the High Court’s interpretation was incorrect. The Court clarified that the rule does not mandate automatic full pay and allowances upon revocation of suspension. The competent authority has to decide on pay and allowances after the conclusion of the departmental proceedings.
What weighed in the mind of the Court?
The primary consideration for the Supreme Court was the correct interpretation of Rule 97 of the Jharkhand Service Code, 2001. The Court emphasized that the language of the rule does not support the automatic grant of full pay and allowances upon revocation of suspension. The Court was also influenced by the fact that disciplinary proceedings were still pending against the respondent. The Court was of the view that the decision on pay and allowances should be made after the conclusion of the departmental proceedings, as per Rule 97(1).
| Sentiment | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Correct Interpretation of Rule 97 | 40% |
| Pending Disciplinary Proceedings | 35% |
| Need for Competent Authority Decision | 25% |
Fact:Law Ratio
| Category | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Fact | 30% |
| Law | 70% |
The Court’s reasoning was primarily based on the legal interpretation of Rule 97, which constituted 70% of the consideration. The factual aspects of the case, such as the pending disciplinary proceedings, contributed 30% to the Court’s decision.
Logical Reasoning
Start: Respondent suspended; disciplinary proceedings initiated.
High Court: Orders full pay upon revocation of suspension, citing Rule 97.
Supreme Court Analysis: Rule 97 does not mandate automatic full pay.
Supreme Court Decision: Full pay depends on competent authority’s decision after disciplinary proceedings.
Judgment
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court’s judgment. The Court held that the High Court had misinterpreted Rule 97 of the Jharkhand Service Code. The Court clarified that full pay and allowances are not automatically granted upon revocation of suspension. The competent authority must decide on pay and allowances after the conclusion of the departmental proceedings, as per Rule 97(1). The Court noted that the State had already paid the full pay and allowances to the respondent under the pain of contempt proceedings. The Court directed that this payment would be subject to the final decision of the competent authority after the conclusion of the disciplinary proceedings.
The Court emphasized that “The High Court misconstrued the provisions of Rule 97 in coming to the conclusion that full pay and allowances must necessarily follow as a consequence of the suspension being revoked. This construction is contrary to the plain terms of Rule 97 as extracted above.”
The Court further clarified that “It is only after the conclusion of the departmental inquiry that the competent authority will have to decide, in terms of Rule 97, how the period of suspension should be treated and whether it is liable to be treated as a period spent on duty. A decision will be taken on the pay and allowances which should be allowed.”
The Court also stated that “the payment which has been made to the respondent shall be subject to the ultimate decision of the competent authority in terms of Rule 97(1) after the conclusion of the disciplinary proceedings.”
There were no dissenting opinions in this case. The judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench of Dr. Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, J and Indira Banerjee, J, with the opinion authored by Dr. Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, J.
The implications of this judgment are that government employees who are suspended and later reinstated are not automatically entitled to full pay and allowances for the suspension period. The final decision on pay and allowances will depend on the outcome of the disciplinary proceedings and the decision of the competent authority, as per the service rules.
Key Takeaways
- Full pay and allowances are not automatic upon revocation of suspension for government employees.
- The competent authority must decide on pay and allowances after the conclusion of disciplinary proceedings.
- Rule 97 of the Jharkhand Service Code, 2001, does not mandate automatic full pay upon revocation of suspension.
- The payment made during suspension is subject to the final decision of the competent authority.
- This judgment clarifies the interpretation of service rules related to suspended employees.
Directions
The Supreme Court directed that the payment already made to the respondent for the suspension period would be subject to the ultimate decision of the competent authority in terms of Rule 97(1) of the Jharkhand Service Code, 2001, after the conclusion of the disciplinary proceedings.
Development of Law
The ratio decidendi of this case is that Rule 97 of the Jharkhand Service Code, 2001, does not mandate automatic full pay and allowances upon revocation of suspension. The competent authority must decide on pay and allowances after the conclusion of the disciplinary proceedings. This clarifies the position of law and sets aside the interpretation made by the High Court.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the Supreme Court’s judgment in State of Jharkhand vs. Amresh Narayan Sinha clarifies that government employees are not automatically entitled to full pay and allowances upon revocation of suspension. The final decision on pay and allowances depends on the outcome of the disciplinary proceedings and the decision of the competent authority, as per the applicable service rules. The Court set aside the High Court’s interpretation of Rule 97 of the Jharkhand Service Code, 2001, providing a clear understanding of the legal position in such cases.
Category
Parent Category: Service Law
Child Category: Suspension of Government Employees
Child Category: Rule 97, Jharkhand Service Code, 2001
Child Category: Pay and Allowances
FAQ
Q: Does revocation of suspension automatically entitle a government employee to full pay and allowances?
A: No, revocation of suspension does not automatically entitle a government employee to full pay and allowances. The competent authority must decide on pay and allowances after the conclusion of disciplinary proceedings.
Q: What does Rule 97 of the Jharkhand Service Code, 2001, say about pay and allowances during suspension?
A: Rule 97 states that the competent authority must consider and make specific orders regarding pay and allowances for the period of absence from duty. Full pay and allowances are only granted if the suspension is found to be wholly unjustified.
Q: What happens if a government employee has already received full pay during suspension?
A: If a government employee has already received full pay during suspension, this payment is subject to the final decision of the competent authority after the conclusion of the disciplinary proceedings.
Q: What is the role of the competent authority in deciding pay and allowances after suspension?
A: The competent authority must decide on pay and allowances after the conclusion of the disciplinary proceedings, based on the facts and circumstances of the case and in accordance with service rules.
Q: What was the Supreme Court’s ruling in State of Jharkhand vs. Amresh Narayan Sinha?
A: The Supreme Court ruled that the High Court misinterpreted Rule 97 of the Jharkhand Service Code. The Court clarified that full pay and allowances are not automatic upon revocation of suspension and the competent authority has to decide after the conclusion of the disciplinary proceedings.