Fr 54 ccs rules - reg.
Vasudevan
(Querist) 05 October 2023
This query is : Resolved
Respected Learned Experts, I had been suspended following the action of CBI-ACB along with my colleague. Both were tried with two separate criminal cases by CBI. The criminal case after examining all the witnesses had acquitted myself and my colleague. My department has regularized the services of my colleague but turned down my request for regularization of suspension period. The judgment of both of us contains the same wordings except the names. There is no departmental action on the issue for both of us. Is there any judgment or administrative circulars for regularization of suspension period. I am going to contest the case as Party In Person. Hence, I shall be much grateful if any body provide me the guiding authority to regulate the suspension period issued either by court or personnel department. I am governed my CCS Rules. Thanks in anticipation to all the Learned Experts.
kavksatyanarayana
(Expert) 05 October 2023
In your case, the criminal case is different for you and your colleague. 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 e any kind due and admissible to the Government servant. If you have any grievance you may approach CAT.
T. Kalaiselvan, Advocate
(Expert) 06 October 2023
Period Of Suspension Of Govt Servant Not To Be Treated As 'On Duty' Where Acquittal Based On Benefit Of Doubt: Bombay High Court.
With reference to the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in Krishnakant Raghunath Bibhavnekar vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.
SC/0337/1997 and 1997 3 SCC 636:
If the conduct alleged is the foundation for prosecution, though it may end in acquittal on appreciation or lack of sufficient evidence, the question emerges whether the government servant prosecuted for commission of defalcation of public funds and fabrication of the records, though culminated into acquittal, is entitled to be reinstated with consequential benefits. In our considered view this grant of consequential benefits with all back wages etc. cannot be as a matter of course. We think that it would be deleterious to the maintenance of the discipline if a person suspended on valid considerations is given full back wages as a matter of course on his acquittal. Two courses are open to the disciplinary authority, viz., it may enquire into the misconduct unless, the selfsame conduct was subject of charge and on trial the acquittal was recorded on a positive finding that the accused did not commit the offence at all; but acquittal is not on benefit of doubt given. Appropriate action may be taken thereon. Even otherwise, the authority may, on reinstatement after following the principle of natural justice, pass appropriate order including treating suspension period as period of not on duty (and on payment of subsistence allowance etc.). CCS Rules 72(3), CCS rules 72(5) and CCS rules 72(7) of the Rules give discretion to the disciplinary authority. Rule 72 also applies, as the action was taken after the acquittal by which date the Rule was in force. Therefore, when the suspension period was treated to be a suspension pending the trial and even after acquittal, he was reinstated into service, he would not be entitled to the consequential benefits.
Vasudevan
(Querist) 06 October 2023
Much obliged to the Learned Experts S/Shri KAVK Satyanarayana, T. Kalaiselvan and Sudhir Kumar. My special thanks to Shri T. Kalaiselvan for his well detailed reply which is an eye opener. Once again thanks to one and all who are participated in this conversation.
