Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + SC Indian Laws - 2006 (1) TMI SC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2006 (1) TMI 551 - SC - Indian LawsWhether Appellant employed by the Respondent herein as a Safety Officer had committed acts of misconduct? Held that:- An order of suspension can also be passed by the employer in exercise of its inherent power in the sense that he may not take any work from the delinquent officer but in that event, the entire salary is required to be paid. An order of suspension can also be passed, if such a provision exist in the rule laying down that in place of the full salary, the delinquent officer shall be paid only the subsistence allowance specified therein. The Appellant herein admittedly obtained the subsistence allowance offered to him without any demur whatsoever. The order of suspension was not passed as a measure of penalty within the meaning of the Rules. Rightly or wrongly, the Respondent invoked Rule 23.3 of HMT Limited Conduct, Discipline & Appeal Rules. The Appellant did not raise any question about the applicability of the said rule, although such a contention could have been raised. In view of the fact that the order of suspension was not passed in terms of Rule 8 of the Rules, the findings of the Commissioner that the said rule will be applicable must be held to be incorrect. Appeal dismissed.
|