Supreme Court Allows Employee in Service Law Dispute Over Denial of Salary for Suspension Period. Appellate Authority's Order Treating Suspension Period as Dies Non After Setting Aside Removal Found Impermissible Under Punjab Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1970.

  • 3
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The dispute involved an employee appointed as a Clerk in the State Transport Department in 1979, who faced criminal cases leading to suspension and removal. An FIR in 1986 for embezzlement resulted in suspension from 1986, and he was acquitted in 2006. Another FIR in 1995 under IPC sections 307 and 506 led to conviction under sections 324 and 506 in 1996, with the High Court reducing the sentence in 2008. Based on this conviction, a show cause notice was issued in 2002 under the Punjab Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1970, and he was removed in 2003. The appellate authority set aside the removal in 2009 but denied salary for the suspension period and treated it as dies non. The employee filed a civil suit in 2010, which was decreed in his favor, directing payment of salary except for the imprisonment period. The State's appeal was dismissed, but the High Court allowed the second appeal, relying on Rule 7.3 of the Punjab Civil Service Rules. In review, the High Court corrected itself, noting Rule 7.3 was inapplicable, but upheld the denial of salary. The core legal issues were whether the appellate authority could deny salary after setting aside removal and whether such denial was permissible under the 1970 Rules. The appellant argued that once removal was set aside, full salary was due, and the appellate authority exceeded its powers. The State contended that the conviction justified the denial. The Supreme Court analyzed the 1970 Rules, particularly Rules 5, 13, and 15, finding that the penalties under Rule 5 did not include denial of salary or dies non. The court held that the appellate authority, having found the removal illegal, could not impose additional conditions like denying salary, as this was not a statutory penalty. The decision favored the employee, directing that he is entitled to salary for the suspension period except for the time spent in imprisonment, as per the civil court's decree. The court emphasized that reinstatement after setting aside removal necessitates full back wages unless statutorily authorized otherwise.

Headnote

A) Service Law - Disciplinary Proceedings - Suspension Period and Dies Non - Punjab Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1970, Rules 5, 13, 15 - Employee was removed based on conviction under IPC sections 324 and 506, but appellate authority set aside removal and reinstated him while denying salary for suspension period and treating it as dies non - Court held that once removal is set aside, employee is entitled to full salary for suspension period except for imprisonment period, as denial of salary beyond penalties under Rule 5 is impermissible (Paras 7-9).

B) Service Law - Disciplinary Proceedings - Appellate Authority's Powers - Punjab Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1970, Rule 15 - Appellate authority, after finding removal illegal, directed reinstatement but denied salary for suspension period - Court held that appellate authority exceeded its authority by imposing such condition, as it is not a penalty under Rule 5 and lacks statutory basis (Paras 7-9).

C) Service Law - Criminal Conviction and Disciplinary Action - Moral Turpitude - Indian Penal Code, 1860, Sections 324, 506 - Employee was convicted under IPC sections 324 and 506, leading to removal under Rule 13(i) of 1970 Rules - Appellate authority noted offences did not involve moral turpitude and reduced sentence, but High Court erred in relying on Rule 7.3 of Punjab Civil Service Rules - Court found removal based on conviction was set aside, entitling employee to back wages (Paras 2-3, 7).

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the appellate authority, after setting aside the removal order, could deny salary for the suspension period and treat it as dies non under the Punjab Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1970.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

Supreme Court allowed the appeals, holding that the employee is entitled to salary for the suspension period except for the imprisonment period, as the appellate authority exceeded its authority in denying salary and treating it as dies non

Law Points

  • Service law
  • disciplinary proceedings
  • suspension period
  • dies non
  • reinstatement
  • back wages
  • Punjab Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules
  • 1970
  • Indian Penal Code
  • 1860
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2022 Lawtext (SC) (3) 119

CA Nos. 811 - 812 of 2022 (@ SLP (C) Nos. 3557 - 3558 of 2019)

2022-03-03

K.M. Joseph

Shri Gurminder Singh, Shri D.S. Patwalia

SUKHDARSHAN SINGH

State

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Service law dispute involving denial of salary for suspension period after reinstatement

Remedy Sought

Employee sought declaration that orders denying pay were illegal and arbitrary, and mandatory injunction for release of pay with interest

Filing Reason

Appellate authority set aside removal but denied salary for suspension period and treated it as dies non

Previous Decisions

Trial court and first appellate court decreed in favor of employee; High Court allowed second appeal; review petition partially allowed

Issues

Whether the appellate authority could deny salary for the suspension period and treat it as dies non after setting aside the removal order Whether the denial of salary is permissible under the Punjab Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1970

Submissions/Arguments

Appellant argued that once removal is set aside, employee is entitled to full salary, and appellate authority exceeded its powers Respondent argued that conviction justified denial of salary and Rule 7.3 of Punjab Civil Service Rules applied

Ratio Decidendi

Once a removal order is set aside and the employee is reinstated, they are entitled to full back wages for the suspension period unless statutorily authorized otherwise; denial of salary or treatment as dies non is not a penalty under Rule 5 of the Punjab Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1970 and exceeds appellate authority's powers.

Judgment Excerpts

Special procedure in certain cases - Notwithstanding anything contained in rules 8,9, 10, 11 and 12. (i) Where any penalty is imposed on a Government employee on the ground of conduct which has led to his conviction on a criminal charge the appellate authority found inter alia and ordered as follows: “Section 307 IPC is not fallen under the definition of “Mortal Turpitude. But the sections i.e., 324 and 506 of the case are very small and the simple imprisonment.” the suit of the plaintiff is decreed to the effect that order dated 13.03.2003 and order dated 29.01.2009/17.02.2009 to the extent whereby pay of the plaintiff has been denied are illegal, arbitrary and against the rules.

Procedural History

Employee appointed in 1979; suspended in 1986 due to FIR; convicted in 1996 under IPC sections 324 and 506; removed in 2003; appellate authority set aside removal in 2009 but denied salary; civil suit filed in 2010 and decreed in 2010; State's appeal dismissed; High Court allowed second appeal; review petition partially allowed; appeals to Supreme Court in 2022.

Acts & Sections

  • Indian Penal Code, 1860: 307, 324, 506
  • Punjab Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1970: Rules 5, 13, 15
  • Punjab Civil Service Rules: Rule 7.3
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
Supreme Court Supreme Court Allows Employee in Service Law Dispute Over Denial of Salary for Suspension Period. Appellate Authority's Order Treating Suspension Period as Dies Non After Setting Aside Removal Found Impermissible Under Punjab Civil Services (Punishme...
Related Judgement
High Court Accident Compensation Appeal Dismissed by Tribunal Based on Annual Income and Dependency Considerations. Tribunal dismisses appeal against assessed income and compensation in motor accident claim, considering dependency and multiplier principles.