Suspended employee not residing on headquarter-should not be denied subsistence allowance
From the aforesaid authority it is clear as day that the presence at the headquarters was not a requirement under the Rule. In the case at hand, there is no rule that provides that the suspended employee should remain at the headquarters to be entitled to get subsistence allowance. That apart, as is evident, the Respondent herein had clearly stated about his financial condition and his inability to remain at the headquarters. It is not the case of the functionaries of the State that he was asked to furnish a certificate and he did not furnish. The whole case rests on the fact that as the Respondent-employee did not remain at the headquarters no subsistence allowance was paid. We have noted the aforesaid authorities as doctrince of prejudice has been associated with non-payment of subsistence allowance. We need not dwell on the concept of absolute position in law. We are only inclined to state that it would depend upon the stipulations made in the rules and the facts of the case. We may hasten to clarify that rules made by the Competent Authority are always subject to their constitutional validity. As far as the present case is concerned the facts do clearly reveal that the salary that was due to the Respondent was not paid for unfathomable reason. The subsistence allowance was not paid on the singular ground that he had not stayed at the headquarters despite a stipulation in the order of suspension. The Respondent had submitted number of representations with regard to his penurious condition to stay at the headquarters and participate in the disciplinary proceedings. There is nothing in the Rules which would require for a suspended employee to remain at the headquarters. Thus, in the present case, even if the doctrince prejudice is applied, it is quite obvious that the Respondent herein was absolutely handicapped to participate in the departmental proceedings and hence, prejudice was caused. In this backdrop, we do not find any error in the conclusion arrived at by the High Court as far as the quashing of order of punishment is concerned. 1
Civil Appeal No. 6265 of 2013 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 35698 of 2011)
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Decided On: 26.07.2013
Appellants: State of Bihar and Ors.
Vs.
Respondent: Arbind
Vs.
Respondent: Arbind
Hon'ble Judges/Coram:Anil R. Dave and Dipak Misra , JJ.1
Citation; AIR 2013 SC 33291
