Kerala High Court: In an appeal against the order of the Kerala Administrative Tribunal (‘KAT’) stating that the respondent is entitled to the pay and allowances for the period of suspension, the Division Bench of A. Muhamed Mustaque* and P. Krishna Kumar, JJ. while upholding the impugned order, held that a government servant would be entitled to full pay and allowances if there were no valid reasons for keeping him under suspension until the conclusion of disciplinary proceedings.
Background
The respondent, a U.D. Clerk, Home for Mentally Deficient Children (HMDC), Kozhikode, was suspended by the proceedings of the Director of Social Justice (‘DSJ’) on the ground that he failed to produce the acquittance register and other connected records in compliance with a direction given by the Kerala Administrative Tribunal.
He was served with the memo of charges and thereafter, an inquiry was conducted wherein vide an order, a minor penalty of censure was imposed, and it was stated that the suspension period would be regularised as a duty for all purposes and limited his claim to subsistence allowance only. This was challenged by the respondent before the Government, but his appeal was rejected. Subsequently, he was reinstated in service.
Thereafter, the respondent challenged the order before the KAT, which held that the respondent would be entitled to pay and allowances for the period of suspension. The Government challenged this order of the KAT in the present appeal.
Issue Whether the respondent was entitled to full pay and allowances during the period of suspension.
Analysis
The Court referred to Rule 56B (3) to (5) of Part I of the Kerala Service Rules, 1956, and stated that the competent authority has the necessary power to order that the government servant will not be entitled to full pay and allowances during the period of suspension. For such a decision, the authority will have to look at the circumstances under which he has been suspended. If the authority finds that suspension was wholly unjustified, the officer would be entitled to full pay and allowances.
The Court elaborated that there are two elements that the authority will have to consider; first, whether the suspension was justified, and second, whether the entire suspension period was necessitated for disciplinary inquiry or not. There may be a situation where the disciplinary authority would have to suspend an employee, but it may not be necessary to keep him under suspension for the entire duration of the proceedings against him. In such cases, the authority will have to reinstate him subject to disciplinary action.
The Court said that an officer may be required to be kept under suspension if his presence in the office would be a threat to the ongoing disciplinary proceedings or if any other similar circumstances demand that such officer is required to be kept under suspension till the conclusion of the disciplinary inquiry. The Court further stated that it is for the disciplinary authority to decide whether such an officer should be kept under suspension for any justifiable reasons till the disciplinary proceedings are concluded. If there are no reasons to do so, then the officer would be entitled to full pay and allowances.
The Court noted that in this case the officer was suspended on 02-12-2013 and the memo of charges was served on 10-03-2014. However, the nature of the allegation indicates that neither was there any necessity to suspend him pending inquiry nor to keep him under suspension throughout the disciplinary proceedings. Noting this, the Court held that there was no application of mind on the part of the disciplinary authority in doing so.
Concurring with the order of the KAT, the Court held that the respondent is entitled to full pay and allowances in this matter as there was no necessity for the disciplinary authority to keep him under suspension till the disciplinary proceedings are concluded.
[State of Kerala v. Haridasan N.K., OP(KAT) No. 326 of 2018, decided on 09-12-2024]
*Judgment Authored by: A. Muhamed Mustaque
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the petitioner: Government Pleader, Nisha Bose Senior Government Pleader
For the respondent: Advocates P. Mohandas, S. Vibheeshanan, K. Sudhinkumar, S.K. Adhithyan, and Muhammed Ibrahim Abdul Samad
