Full wages after quashing of cr.cases by the hon. high cour

I find poor response from experts for complicated matters and if the matter is simple and general, replies are being given.

One must think as to why experts are remaining aloof in responding to complicated legal questions or queries, when they have opportunity of helping a genuine member, who is in distress.

(Not relevant to this query, but General in nature, as many queries posted failed to receive single reply in many cases)

Respected G.L.N. Prasad Sir,

Heartfelt thanks for you empathy and igniting the worth of wisdom of experts. Actually, I am waiting guidance from Shri Kailasevan Sir, Shri Dhingra Sir and Shri Sudhir Kumar Sir in particular. Even valuable guidance from no next to other experts are also cordially and URGENTLY welcomed.

RESPECTED EXPERTS, PLEASE HELP. I am myself doing all my level best but your guidance is invaluable as was in past on many occassions. I have only 09 days remaing.

Yours sincerely,

Ritesh Ranjan

The authority has expressed its firmness on point no;8.

You may send PM to the experts named by you and request for their advise.

After hearing from the experts you may also consider adding few sentences in your written reply.

"The compromise between a wife and husband is different from ordinary compromises in criminal cases.  Whether the acquittal is honorable or not has never been stated either in Judgment and mere assumptions are not grounds for discipllinary action.  Several sensitive issues are involved in marital compromises and a compromise is most honorable thing in such affairs, and once it is quashed by HC means, they have accepted compromise and judgment never stated about any undesirable or dishonorable comments.  An accused can never become a criminal simply because a case was filed against him and this in no way affected my functioning and performance of my duties.  My record is clean and I have never received any such memos or sought explanation so far against my functioning as an employee.  The appraisal ratings also are better for all....years of my service.

Hence I pray for  favourable consideration of facts..

Now according to me the burden of proof rests with employer  under life and liberty clause (must be replied within 48 hours) and they must state whether  compromise between married couple amounts to honorable or not.  You may file RTI Application to SPIO of employer seeking same information .  Follow rules and regulations applicable to your Public authority.

Information solicited::

1)Please provide the extract in Disciplinary Rules and regulations framed or such directives or any judgements that state " Full Wages need not be paid in Cases of Criminal Proceedings Quashed in the interest of Justice even the Petitioner has spent some time in Judicial Custody.

2)and state that compromise in marital bliss charges are not honorable.

Please file application and also seek extending of time for another 15 days for submitting explanation, as you are expecting relevant information on facts of law, which is not materialized inspite of best efforts. (This is just an attempt and you can continue your efforts and you may even obtain a letter from your spouse that the complaint is not a fact and she was pressurised by third party with undue influence and to bring pressure against husband, was compelled to sign documments and that husband is innocent.)

The apex court has laid principles while deciding case.

The service rules and regulations and principle of natural justice are the points to be considered.

https://supremecourtofindia.nic.in/scr/2013/2013_v9_pi.pdf

The rules etc have been discussed at length in:

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/589892/

Respected Shri GLN Prasad Sir and Shri Kumar Doab Sir,

I am speechless for your kind help and imparting guidance and your valuable time and invaluable knowledge, experience and research.

Namaste,

Always your grateful,

Ritesh Ranjan

Best Wishes.

A drop of water is only water, but depending on the place of water, the situation changes. (the drop in a ocean makes it saltier and loses it's value, it may disappear on a frying plate, it may become pearl, it may shine like a diamond on a leaf.  The guidance depends on where it reaches and how it benefits.  All the best.  A simple success story gives us more strength and happiness than any wealth.

The query is also posted at:

https://www.lawyersclubindia.com/experts/Non-grant-of-full-wages-against-suspension-period-even-after-quashing-of-the-proceedings-603106.asp

You can benefit from the advise of experts.

I could not join this discussion and the related query because of my other engagements. Eventhough late by a week, I hasten to post my suggestion on the issues involved.

First of all, let me place my appreciation for the great efforts made by my friend Kumar Doab in making discussion worthwhile.

The  case under discussion relates to the regularisation of the period under suspension. The suspension was because of the Government servant being in custody for more than 48 hours. The suspension was revoked once the person was released from custody. Subsequently, he was acquitted of the charges because of compromise, but it was not decision on merits. As such, the authority is justified taking the stand as revealed by the Show Cause Notice. The SCN could be replied relying on the absence of moral turptitude etc. However, the factum of being in custody and acquittal as result of compromise are bound to be a decisive factor in the final decision. 

If the decision is adverse, the matter could be agitated in the Administrative Tribunal or the High Court.

>>> You have posted in other thread that:


"2. Whereas, it being not an honourable acquittal from the charges and it was a compromise settlement without any trial,.....................In accordance with FR 54-B the payment will be restricted to subsistence allowance drawn by him already."




>>> It is felt that;


…………..“This rule has been now amended and the words 'honorably acquitted' do not appear in F.R. 54-B............



The removal of the words honorably acquitted makes a substantial difference. The only thing that has now to be seen by the competent authority is whether the suspension was wholly unjustified.......................................... and not whether the Govt. servant was "honorably acquitted'.” 




>>> Consider for a moment that the authority does not concur and you approach Tribunal/HC and respondents approach SC and SC take a full view of the matter at that time.



Therefore place the whole case file before a very able counsel let your counsel make a full note of words and statements etc and structure your representation, so as to defend your long term interest .
 

FR 54B is reproduced below:

F.R. 54-B. (1) When a Government servant who has been suspended is re-instated or would have been so re-instated but for his retirement on superannuation while under suspension, the authority competent to order re-instatement shall consider and make specific order- (a) regarding the pay and allowances to be paid to the Government servant for the period of suspension ending with re-instatement 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 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, subject to adjustment in respect of subsistence allowance already paid.

(3) Where the authority competent to order re-instatement 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 reason directly attributable to the Government servant it may, after giving him an opportunity to make his representation within 60 days from the date on which the communication in this regard is served in 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 subrules (8) and (9) be paid such amount (not being the whole) of the full 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 finalisation of the disciplinary or 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 subrule (1) who shall make an order according to the provisons of subrule (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.

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 servants; 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 the subsistence allowance and other allowances admissible under rule 53

The instant case needs to be regularised in terms of the provisions of sub-rule (5) read with those of sub-rule (7). As such it could be seen the Authority is giving most liberal consideration, as far as the rules permit, in favour of the queriest; the hard fact is that this is a case of deemed suspension and the acquittal has been on compromise. 

he rule in this context has been laid down by the Supreme Court in Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation vs. M. Prabhakar Rao.