STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ANR. versus MANGAT LAL SIDANA

Citation: [2022] 14 S.C.R. 765 · Decided: 23-03-2022 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K.M. JOSEPH · Disposal: Case Partly allowed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
765
   [2022] 14 S.C.R. 765
765
STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ANR.
v.
MANGAT LAL SIDANA
(Civil Appeal No. 2386 of 2022)
MARCH 23, 2022
[K. M. JOSEPH AND HRISHIKESH ROY, JJ.]
Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951 – r.54 – Scope and purport of
– Held: Whenever there is reinstatement in the circumstances
attracting r.54, the authority is to pass a specific order relating to
the pay and allowances to be paid and also as to whether the period
of such absence is being treated as period spent on duty – Where
the employee is not fully exonerated and therefore is governed by
r.54(3), then the period of absence is not to be treated as duty unless
the authority specifically directs that it shall be duty for any specified
purpose – Further, proviso to r.54(5) contemplates that it is open to
the Government to direct that the period of absence shall be
converted into leave of any kind due and admissible for Government
servant – In the present case, the respondents have not been fully
exonerated as such – This would take their case outside the four
walls of r.54(2) – Their suspension may not fall in the category of
unjustified suspension – This would bring their cases within the
scope of r.54(3) which means that the exact amount of pay and
allowances to be paid is to be less than the full pay and allowances
– However, this exercise can be done only after notice to the
employee which was not done but, to remit it back for this purpose
would be inequitable – On facts, the respondents be paid pay and
allowances fixed at 50 % of the pay and allowances which they
would have drawn for the period of their absence – Principles of
Natural Justice – Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control
& Appeal) Rules, 1958 – r.34 – Punjab Civil Services Rules – Service
Law.
Service Law – Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951 – r.54 –
Principles of natural justice – Observance of – Held: The employee
must be given an opportunity before any order is passed – Even u/
r. 54, the position is the same – Observance of principles of nature
justice is of cardinal importance for the employee whose very life
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
766
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 14 S.C.R.
will be at stake for he would on the one hand if he is heard get an
opportunity to pursuade the competent authority that his case would
fall under r.54(2) and not under r.54(3) – Denial of opportunity
can have very serious consequences.
Partly allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1.1 Rule 54 is a provision which is a common
provision in both the State services and also the Central services.
The counter part in the Central Services is Rule 54 of the Rules.
In fact, Rule 7.3(B) of the Punjab Civil Services Rules is a separate
provision which deals with a person being placed under suspension
and who is reinstated without there being a penalty imposed. Rule
54 with which this Court is concerned contemplates an amalgam
of situations which deal with disciplinary proceedings culminating
in dismissal, compulsory retirement and removal and it also deals
with absence from duty on account of suspension. In other words,
when an employee at the end of the disciplinary proceedings is
punished in terms thereof and as a result of the order passed is
reinstated, then the competent authority is called upon to consider
and pass specific order regarding the pay and allowances to be
paid for the period for absence from duty. The Rule appears to
separately contemplate the duty to provide for the pay and
allowances for the period of suspension ending with the date of
retirement on superannuation as the case may be. In other words,
the Rule in its application contemplates a situation wherein a
Government servant being dismissed, removed, compulsory
retired or suspended is reinstated. It also takes in a case where
but for his retirement, he would have been reinstated while under
suspension. In both these cases, the duty of the competent
authority is to pass the order within the contemplation of Rule
54(1)(a) and (b). This means that apart from dealing with pay and
allowances, as to whether the period of absence is to be treated
as duty must be dealt with. This flows from Rule 54(1)(b). The
manner in which the authority is to pass the order is regulated by
subsequent provisions in Rule 54. Sub-rule 54(2) contemplates
that the competent authority must examine the proceedings, apply
its mind, and find whether it is a case where the Government
servant at the end of the day has been fully exonerated. In the
case of suspension wher

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