Suspension period to be treated as duty period.
Guest
(Querist) 11 August 2014
This query is : Resolved
Dear Great Folks !!!
To our earlier discussion in different thread,I need give clear information along with attached documents.
Details -:
1. Judicial custody for 2 days,for 498a
2.Suspended from NTPC JOB.
3.Getting substantial amount during suspension period
4. FIR was quashed based on Jurisdication ground after 7 years
5.Joined NTPC: Suspension revoked and I am Regularised now.
High court judgement (Quash)-:
" Applying the principles of law as aforestated to the facts of the present case and the ratio of the decision of
this court in the case of R.satyamoorthy & ors(supra),the impugned F.I.R registered at Bhubaneswar Mahila PS cas no
24 of 2007 as well as the corresponding G.R case no 439 of 2007 pending in the court of learned SDJM Bhubaneswar ,as
against the petitioner are here by quashed.
CRLMC and the misc case are accordingly disposed of"
Suspension period treated as non duty(NTPC comment)-:
"As disiplinary authority, I am of the opinion that your suspension subsequent to your being in judicial custody was
not wholly unjustified. I have therefore decided that your suspension period shall be treated as " Not on Duty" and
you will not be entitled to get any benefit beyond the subsistence allowance already paid to you."
Information requested -:
1. Request you to please provide some line of thoughts to treat suspension period as duty period.(Please provide some information which I can use for appeal to next level of executives)
2. request you to please provide some supreme court judgement w.r.t it.
Thanks in advance for gr8 people of this forum
With regards
Devajyoti Barman
(Expert) 11 August 2014
Court generally do not give any relief of full salary when he was put off the roaster out of a disciplinary proceeding.
There is no dearth of SC decision on this account.
Better join the duty asap.
Sudhir Kumar, Advocate
(Expert) 12 August 2014
NTPC has decided leniently not to take disciplinary action because acquittal is not on merit rather on procedural ground.
Sudhir Kumar, Advocate
(Expert) 12 August 2014
repeated
http://www.lawyersclubindia.com/experts/Suspension-period-regularised-as-regular-period-489441.asp
Anirudh
(Expert) 12 August 2014
Dear Mr. Sudhir, in the earlier thread pointed out by you, Mr. Barman said that NTPC was wrong. Please see his answer. But now his answer is completely different.
Expert : Devajyoti Barman
Posted 3 days ago
NTPC is wrong. File Writ in the high court. you have indeed a good case.
Rajendra K Goyal
(Expert) 12 August 2014
Post any subsequent query in same thread, do not cross check the experts.
malipeddi jaggarao
(Expert) 12 August 2014
First of all you mend your language - do not address the experts as folks!
You should continue your further queries in the same thread. In your earlier thread you did not make a mention about the comments of disciplinary authority. Now you came with a new thing and blaming the senior expert Shri Barman.
As regards your query, if the disciplinary authority's observation that your suspension subsequent to your being in judicial custody was not wholly unjustified
you have to challenge this observation.
By all means, you should join duty asap as advised by Mr.Barman and the on the merits of the case you can continue your legal battle with the employer if you so wishes.
And be careful, the employer may again resort to disciplinary action if you irritate them on some ground or other and make you to suffer.
Sudhir Kumar, Advocate
(Expert) 13 August 2014
Agreed full with Mr Jaggarao. I will add.
when accused Govt servant is acquitted on procedural grounds that too in dowry case, the employer is well equipped by law to take disciplinary action against him (on same charge of dowry demand. The standard of evidence is different in case of disciplinary proceedings. Even custodial statement is evidence in disciplinary proceedings.
Le the author annoy the employer so that they wake up from their lenience.
Sudhir Kumar, Advocate
(Expert) 13 August 2014
I believe that CDA rules of NTPC may not be different than Govt conduct rules.
Ruke 13A of CCS(Conduct) rules reads that:-
No Government servant shall-
(i) give or take or abet the giving or taking of dowry; or
(ii) demand directly or indirectly, from the parent or guardian of a bride or bridegroom, as the case may be, any dowry.
Explanation:- For the purposes of this rule, ‘dowry’ has the same meaning as in the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961(28 of 1961).
T. Kalaiselvan, Advocate
(Expert) 17 August 2014
Expert Mr. Anirudh has already explained very well about this subject query in the previous thread, in fact I promised him to come back with a legal back to his opinion on the basis of the citation he provided, I am still looking for a better citation to counter his version, I am not able to get one, may be I have to surrender to his views. But sir, I have not given up yet.
@ Author: you still have a chance to go for appeal, work out on it.
Sudhir Kumar, Advocate
(Expert) 17 August 2014
Even I would be happy if I could be benefited by better views as promised by Mr Kalaiselvan.
However I have already highlighted rule position under which the department can issue chargehseet and impose penalty even after his acquittal.
The querist may consult CDA rules of NTPC if there is a different provision.
