Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + HC Indian Laws - 2019 (9) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (9) TMI 1653 - HC - Indian LawsEntitlement to a Government servant to full pay and allowances during the period of his suspension - Rule 97(3) of the Bihar Service Code - HELD THAT:- The conclusions are summarized as follows: (i) The competent authority is empowered to exercise the jurisdiction with regard to entitlement of full salary during the period of suspension for those who have already superannuated from the service, but while considering the claim, the principle mentioned in Rule 97 of the Bihar Service Code will be invoked. (ii) If in the departmental proceeding, the Government servant has been fully exonerated, he will be entitled to full pay and allowances for the period of suspension. (iii) In case the departmental proceeding has been initiated but, could not be concluded or was dropped or in any manner does not come to its finality, the delinquent Government employee cannot be deprived of his full pay and allowances on account of non-completion of the inquiry proceeding or non- submission of the inquiry report. (iv) If the departmental proceeding has been rendered infructuous and not converted under Rule 43(b) of the Bihar Pension Rules and no inquiry report has been submitted, in that circumstances, the retired Government servant will be entitled to the entire salary. (v) If the departmental proceeding has been initiated, the inquiry proceeding has been concluded and in case any substantive order has been passed after superannuation, which cannot be upheld on account of cession of relationship of master and servant, in that circumstance, the competent authority is empowered to take a decision on the principle of Rule-97(3) read with Rule 97(5) of the Bihar Service Code. (vi) If the Government servant has been prosecuted departmentally and the order of punishment has been passed while in service and he has filed an appeal but by that time he superannuates and the appeal is remanded back on technical ground, in that circumstance, Rule-97 (3) read with Sub- rule (5) will play an important factor for entitlement of full salary during the period of suspension. (vii) If the two members of the Division Bench record a difference of opinion, the reference would be made to the third Judge either Single or Division Bench in terms of Clause- 28 of the Letters Patent of the Patna High Court and the third Judge will confine his opinion to the point which has been referred and will not embark on the point or points not referred. After recording his/their opinion, the referee Judge will return his/their opinion to the referral Bench in terms of Clause-28 of the Letters Patent of Patna High Court and the point shall be decided according to the opinion of the majority of Judges, who have heard the case including those who first heard, whereupon the referral Bench would finally pronounce the judgment. In the event, the referee Bench decides the point apart from the point referred for adjudication, the opinion recorded by the referee Bench will be subject matter of discussion before the referral Bench and the decision of the Division Bench will be treated to be the final opinion on that point or points and the same will be treated to be the part of the judgment and in that event, the principle laid down in Clause- 28 of the Letters Patent of Patna High Court will not be applicable for deciding the majority opinion. (viii) The contention of Mr. Mauli, learned Advocate, that the judgment of Dr. Lakshmi Narain Singh [1987 (9) TMI 431 - PATNA HIGH COURT] is a Full Bench Judgment, cannot be approved and accepted as the judgment has been delivered by Single Bench and not remitted to Division Bench for final approval. Hence, the said judgment is a Single Bench Judgment. The notice dated 07.03.1995, issuing show-cause and the ultimate action taken by the respondent authorities vide order dated 30.06.1995, do not suffer from any patent illegality, irrationality or perversity and procedural irregularity - Appeal dismissed.
|