Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh v. 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of School Education, Mahanadi Bhavan, Mantralaya
Case Details
1 SMT NIRMALA RAO HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR NAFR WPS No. 8810 of 2022 1 - Fulsai Nirsingh S/o Late Shri Kunjoram Aged About 65 Years R/o Village Barapipar, Police Station And Tahsil Dabhra, District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of School Education, Mahanadi Bhavan, Mantralaya, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, District : Chhattisgarh Raipur, 2 - Director Public Education, Directorate, Indrawati Bhavan, Nava Raipur, Chhattisgarh District Raipur, : 3 - Commissioner Public Education, Chhattisgarh, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, Chhattisgarh District Raipur, : 4 - District Education Officer District Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner For Respondent/ State : :
Legal Reasoning
Shri Abhishek Sharma, Advocate alongwith Shri Deepak Diwan, Advocate. Shri Prateek Tiwari, P.L. Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 17.07.2025 1. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following reliefs:- “10.1) That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call the entire record pertaining to case of petitioner from kind perusal from the respondent authorities. 2 10.2) That, the Hon'ble Court by issuing appropriate writ set- aside the impugned order dated 17.11.2021 passed by respondent no. 3 (Annexure P/1) and consequently suspension period of petitioner i.e. from 28.05.2008 to 02.09.2014 would be treated as on duty for all purposes. 10.3) That, the Hon'ble Court be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to finalize forthwith all the dues including pensionary benefits as per rules since retirement of the petitioner. 10.4) Any other relief or relief (s) which this Hon'ble Court may think proper in view of the facts and circumstances of the case may also kindly be granted.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner, who was working on the post of Assistant Teacher at Government Higher Secondary School Kharod, District Janjgir-Champa, was placed under suspension from 28.5.2008 to 2.9.2014. He would further submit that no departmental enquiry was initiated against him, and he remained suspended till the date of retirement, i.e. 31.7.2019. He would contend that the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Champa, allowed Criminal Case No. 1664/2008 vide judgment dated 24.12.2020. He would also contend that an order of recovery was passed against the petitioner, and against the said order, a petition was filed. The said petition was allowed, the order of recovery was set aside, and the respondent authorities were directed to decide the petitioner’s case for the grant of pension and other retiral benefits as per rules. He would further state that the order passed by respondent No.3 is contrary to the provisions of Fundamental Rule 54-B and therefore, the order Annexure-P/1 dated 17.11.2021 may be quashed. 3 3. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the State would oppose the submissions made by counsel for the petitioner. He would submit that the authority concerned has passed a well-reasoned order after taking into consideration the material available. He would further submit that sufficient opportunity was afforded to the petitioner, and there is no illegality or infirmity in the order. He would also submit that the petition deserves to be dismissed. 4. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents present on the record. 5. The issue involved in the present case is “whether the petitioner would be entitled to get the salary for the suspension period, particularly when he was placed under suspension on account of the registration of a criminal case”. 6. Rule 54-B of the Fundamental Rules reads as under:- “F.R. 54-B. (1) When a Government servant who has been suspended, is reinstated or would have been so reinstated but for his retirement on superannuation while under suspension, the authority competent to order reinstatement shall consider and make a specific order- (a) regarding the pay and allowances to be paid to the Government servant for the period of suspension ending with reinstatement or the date of his retirement on superannuation, as the case may be; and (b) whether or not the said period shall be treated as a period spent on duty. (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in Rule 53, where a Government servant under suspension dies before the disciplinary or the Court proceedings instituted against him are concluded, the period between the date of suspension and the date of death shall be treated as duty for all purposes and his family shall be paid the full pay and allowances for that period to which he would have been entitled had he not been suspended, 4 subject to adjustment in respect of subsistence allowance already paid. (3) Where the authority competent to order reinstatement is of the opinion that the suspension was wholly unjustified, the Government servant shall, subject to the provisions of sub-rule (8) be paid the full pay and allowances to which he would have been entitled, had he not been suspended: Provided that where such authority is of the opinion that the termination of the proceedings instituted against the Government servant had been delayed due to reasons directly attributable to the Government servant, it may, after giving him an opportunity to make his representation within sixty days from the date on which the communication in this regard is served on him and after considering the representation, if any, submitted by him, direct, for reasons to be recorded in writing, that the Government servant shall be paid for the period of such delay only such amount (not being the whole) of such pay and allowances as it may determine. (4) In a case falling under sub-rule (3) the period of suspension shall be treated as a period spent on duty for all purposes. (5) In cases other than those falling under sub-rules (2) and (3) the Government servant shall, subject to the provisions of sub- rules (8) and (9) be paid such amount (not being the whole) of the pay and allowances to which he would have been entitled had he not been suspended, as the competent authority may determine, after giving notice to the Government servant of the quantum proposed and after considering the representation, if any, submitted by him in that connection within such period (which in no case shall exceed sixty days from the date on which the notice has been served) as may be specified in the notice. (6) where suspension is revoked pending finalization of the disciplinary or the Court proceedings, any order passed under sub-rule (1) before the conclusion of the proceedings against the Government servant, shall be reviewed on its own motion after the conclusion of the proceedings by the authority mentioned in sub-rule (1) who shall make an order according to the provisions of sub-rule (3) or sub-rule (5), as the case may be. (7) In a case falling under sub-rule (5), the period of suspension shall not be treated as a period spent on duty unless the 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 order that the period of suspension shall be converted into leave of any kind due and admissible to the Government servant. 5 NOTE.- The order of the competent authority under the preceding proviso shall be absolute and no higher sanction shall be necessary for the grant of- (a) extraordinary leave in excess of three months in the case of temporary Government servant; and (b) leave of any kind in excess of five years in the case of permanent or quasi-permanent Government servant. (8) The payment of allowances under sub-rule (2), sub-rule (3) or sub-rule (5) shall be subject to all other conditions under which such allowances are admissible. (9) The amount determined under the proviso to sub-rule (3) or under sub-rule (5) shall not be less than subsistence allowance and other allowances admissible under Rule 53.” 7. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation vs. M. Prabhakar Rao, (2011) 8 SCC 155 in paragraph 15 held as under:- “15. Sub-rule (3) of F.R. 54-B does not state that in case of acquittal in a criminal proceedings the employee is entitled to his salary and allowances for the period of suspension. Sub- rule (3) of F.R. 54-B also does not state that in such case of acquittal the employee would be entitled to his salary and allowances for the period of suspension unless the charge of misconduct against him is proved in the disciplinary proceedings. Sub-rule (3) of F.R. 54-B vests power in the competent authority to order that the employee will be paid the full pay and allowances for the period of suspension if he is of the opinion that the suspension of the employee was wholly unjustified. Hence, even where the employee is acquitted of the charges in the criminal trial for lack of evidence or otherwise, it is for the competent authority to form its opinion whether the suspension of the employee was wholly unjustified and so long as such opinion of the competent authority was a possible view in the facts and circumstances of the case and on the materials before him, such opinion of the competent authority would not be interfered by the Tribunal or the Court.” 8. From a bare reading of Fundamental Rule 54-B and the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, it is apparent that in the case of acquittal, the employee would be entitled to his pay and allowances for the period of suspension unless the charge of misconduct against him 6 is proved in the disciplinary proceedings. In the present case also, no departmental enquiry was conducted against the petitioner, and he was placed under suspension on the grounds of the registration of the FIR/criminal case. The petitioner was tried and was acquitted by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Champa, in Criminal Case No. 1664 of 2008 dated 24.12.2020. The Competent Authority has not passed any order in light of Fundamental Rule 54B with regard to the order of suspension and the petitioner was getting subsistence allowance even after superannuation, therefore, the order passed by respondent No.3 dated 17.11.2021 is not sustainable in the eyes of law, and the same is liable to be and is hereby quashed. 9. The respondent authorities are directed to consider the matter of the petitioner with regard to the payment of retiral dues of the suspension period and pass the order strictly in accordance with the provisions of Fundamental Rule 54B in an objective manner within a period of 120 days. If the petitioner is found entitled to get pay and allowance, the same shall be paid accordingly. 10. With the aforesaid observation(s) and direction(s), this petition is
Decision
disposed of. Nimmi Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge