STATE OF BIHAR & ORS versus ARBIND

Citation: [2013] 17 S.C.R. 296 · Decided: 26-07-2013 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ANIL R. DAVE, DIPAK MISRA · Disposal: Disposed off
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
[2013) 17 S.C.R. 296 
STATE OF BIHAR & ORS 
v. 
ARBIND 
(Civil Appeal No. 6265 of 2013) 
JULY 26, 2013 
[ANIL R. DAVE AND DIPAK MISRA, JJ.] 
Service Law: 
c 
Subsistence Allowance - Non-payment of - On the 
ground that delinquent did not stay at head-quarters during 
departmental proceedings - Propriety of - Held: Suspended 
employee is entitled to subsistence allowance - In the instant 
case, there is no rule providing for presence of the employee 
at the headquarters, to be entitled to get subsistence 
D allowance - Direction to release the subsistence allowance. 
Disciplinary Proceedings - Initiation of - Delinquent 
leaving the head-quarters due to paucity of money, as no 
subsistence allowance released, despite repeated 
E representations - Ex-parte proceedings - Resulting in order 
of dismissal from service - Writ petition dismissed - In writ 
appeal High Court quashed order of dismissal and directed 
payment of 50% of the salary, release of subsistence 
allowance and initiation of disciplinary proceedings afresh 
F 
after notice to the delinquent - On appeal - Held: Order of 
High Court was justified - In view of the fact that the delinquent 
has restricted his claim for subsistence allowance for a 
particular period till the date of order of High Court to Rs. one 
lakh, the same directed to be paid within specified period. 
G 
H 
The respondent-employee was placed under 
suspension, while departmental proceedings were 
initiated against him. The respondent was required to 
stay at the headquarters during the proceedings. Despite 
296 
STATE OF BIHAR v. ARBIND 
297 
several representations by the respondent, subsistence 
A 
allowance was not released. Therefore, the respondent 
was forced to leave the head-quarters due to paucity of 
money. He did not participate in the departmental 
proceedings, and eventually as a result of ex-parte 
proceedings, he was dismissed from service. 
B 
Respondent filed writ petition challenging the order of 
dismissal: Single Judge of High Court dismissed the 
petition. Division Bench of High Court setting aside the 
order of Single Judge, directed the appellant-State to pay 
50% of the arrears of salary and the subsistence c 
allowance in full and to commence departmental 
proceedings afresh after issuing notice to the delinquent. 
Hence, the present appeal. 
Disposing of the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1. It is settled in law that an order of 
suspension never puts an end to the service of an 
employee. He is not only entitled to the salary but is also 
eligible to get the subsistence allowance. In the preseiit 
case there is no rule that provides that the suspended 
·employee should remain at the headquarters to be 
entitled to get subsistence allowance. That apart, the 
respondent 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-
D 
E 
F 
em p I oyee did not remain at the headquarters, no 
subsistence allowance was paid. Thus, in the present 
case, even if the doctrine of prejudice is applied, it is quite 
G 
obvious 
that 
the 
respondent was 
absolutely 
handicapped to participate in the departmental 
proceedings and hence, prejudice was caused. In this 
backdrop, there is no error in the conclusion arrived at 
H 
298 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 17 S.C.R. 
A 
by the High Court as far as the quashing of order of 
punishment is concerned. [Paras 9, 15 and 18) [302-E-F; 
306-A; 307-E, F] 
Khem Chand vs. Union of India and Ors. AIR 1963 SC 
8 
687: 1963Suppl. SCR 229; The State of Madhya Pradesh 
vs. The State ofMaharashtra and Ors. AIR 1977 SC 1466: 
1977· (2) SCR 555; O.P. Gupta vs. Union of India and Ors. 
AIR 1987 SC 2257: 1988 (1) SCR 27; Fakirbhai Fulabhai 
Solanki vs. Presiding Officer and Anr. AIR 1986 SC 1168; 
Capt. M. Paul Anthony vs. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd. and Anr. 
C 
AIR 1999 SC 1416: 1999 (2) SCR 257; Jagdamba Prasad 
Shukla vs. State of U. P. and Ors. AIR 2000 SC 2806: 2000 
(7) SCC 90; Anwarun Nisha Khatoon vs. State of Bihar and 
Ors. (2002) 6 SCC 703; Indra Bhanu Gaur vs Committee, 
Management of M.M. Degree College and Ors. (2004) 1 SCC 
D 281: 2003 (5) Suppl. SCR 327; Ganesh Ram vs. State of 
Bihar (1995) 2 Pat LJR 690; U. P. State Textile Corpn. Ltd. 
vs. P. C. Chaturvedi and Ors. (2005) 8 SCC 211: 2005 (3) 
Suppl. SCR 849 -
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.