STATE GOVERNMENT OF M.P. & ORS. versus SHANKARLAL

Citation: [2007] 13 S.C.R. 542 · Decided: 13-12-2007 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA · Disposal: Case Partly allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
ST ATE GOVERNMENT OF M.P. & ORS. 
v. 
SHANKARLAL 
DECEMBER 13, 2007 
B 
[S.B. SINHA AND HARJIT SINGH BEDI, JJ.] 
Service Law-Subsistence allowance-Delayed payment-Effect 
of-Suspension-Departmental proceedings-Non-participation of 
C employee-In ex parte proceeding, employee found guilty of 
misconduct-Termination of service-Administrative Tribunal holding 
that employee himself was responsible for delayed payment of 
subsistence allowance-High Court holding that delayed payment was 
violative of principles of natural justice-On appeal, held: It was 
D necessary for the High Court to arrive at a decision whether non- . 
payment of subsistence allowance caused prejudice to the employee-
Hence matter, remitted to High Court-Madhya Pradesh Fundamental 
Rules-r. 53-Principles of Natural Justice. 
E 
Respondent-employee was placed under suspension by order 
dated 4.9.1982. In the order it was stipulated that subsistence allowance 
would be paid to him in terms of Rule 53 of Madhya Pradesh 
Fundamental Rules. During the course of departmental proceedings, 
out of eighteen dates, respondent attended the hearing only on five 
F dates. Thus in ex parte departmental proceeding, he was found guilty 
and consequently his services were terminated. Respondent collected 
his subsistence allowance for the period 4.9.1982 to 20.9.1982 in January 
1985 and payment till September, 1984 was made in February 1987. 
Departmental appeal against the order of termination was dismissed. 
G In the original application filed by him, State Administrative Tribunal 
held that no case was made out for interference with the order of 
disciplinary authority. On the question ofnon-payment of subsistence 
allowance, it held that respondent himself was responsible for delayed 
H 
542 
j -
L 
STATE GOVERNMENT OF M.P. v. SHANKARLAL 
543 
·. r) 
payment. In writ petition, High Court held that non-payment of A 
subsistence allowance amounted to violation of principles of natural 
justice. 
In appeal to this court, appellant-State contended that order of 
High court was wrong as the respondent had not shown any prejudice 
B 
with regard to non-payment of subsistence allowance. 
or~ 
Partly allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1. The High Court, committed a serious error in holding 
that the question of prejudice is irrelevant The High Court, was required 
to arrive at a correct finding of fact so as to enable it to pose unto itself c 
the right question for arriving at a right decision. 
[Paras 16and17) [550-B, E] 
Indra Bhanu Gaur v. Committee, Management of MM Degree 
College and Ors., [2004) 1 SCC 281, relied on. 
D 
-\ 
Jagdamba Prasad Shukla v. State of UP. and Ors., [2000) 7 SCC 
90, distinguished. · 
UP. State Textile Corpn. Ltd v.P.C. Chaturvedi, [2005] 8 SCC211, 
referred to. 
E 
2. Respondent, indisputably, has been found guilty of commission 
of misconduct A fmding of fact has been arrived at by the Tribunal that 
the respondent himself was to thank himself for non-receipt of 
.... 
~ 
subsistence allowance. It was held that the appellant had taken all 
possible steps for disbursement of subsistence allowance. 
F 
[Para 18) [550-F, G) 
3. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, interest of 
justice shall be subserved if the matter is remitted to the High Court 
for consideration thereof afresh. The High Court may look into the 
records of the case so as to enable it to arrive at a decision whether G 
_>... 
non-payment of subsistence allowance caused any prejudice to the 
respondent in the event it intends to interfere with the finding of fact 
arrived at by the Tribunal that the respondent himself was responsible 
therefor. However, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, 
the State is directed to pay a sum ofRs.50,000/- to the respondent by H 
544 SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2007] 13 (Addi.) S.C.R. 
A way oflitigation costs. [Paras 19 and 20) (550-H; 551-A, B, CJ 
t' . 
O.P. Guptav. Union of India and Ors., AIR (1987) SC 2257, referred 
to. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 587 of 
B 2005. 
From the final Judgment and Order dated 15.09.2003 of the High 
J. ... 
Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur in Writ Petition No. 1497 of2002. 
Vibha Datta Makhija for the Appellant. 
c 
Shankarlal Respondent-In-Person. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
S.B. SINHA, J. l. Respondent was appointed as a Lower Division 
D Clerk in the Public Works Department on 25.9.1971. He was promoted 
as Upper Division Clerk 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.