LexTHE GREATER HYDERABAD MUNICIPAL CORPORATION versus M. PRABHAKAR RAO
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2011] 9 S.C.R. 594 THE GREATER HYDERABAD MUNICIPAL ... ~ A CORPORATION v. M. PRABHAKAR RAO Civil Appeal No. 6014 of 2011 - B JULY 28, 2011 [R.V. RAVEENDRAN AND A.K. PATNAIK, JJ.] Service Law: c Wages for the period of suspension - Held: Under sub- r. (3) of F. R. 54-8, even where the employee is acquitted of the charges in the criminal trial for lack of evidence or otherwise, it is for the competent authority to form its opinion • D whether the suspension of the employee was wholly unjustified and so long as such opinion of the competent authority was a possible view in the facts of the case and on the materials before it, such view would not be interfered by the tribunal or the court - In the instant case, the employee E was arrested on the report of the Deputy Director, Anti- Corruption Bureau for taking bribe - The chemical test was found positive - The employee was arrested and released on bail - He was placed under suspension immediately -During trial, the complainant turned hostile - The employee was F acquitted by the trial court holding that there was a doubt I whether the amount paid was towards illegal gratification - High Court held that recovery of the amount had been proved, but purpose for which the amount was paid could not be proved - On these materials, the view of the competent authority that the suspension could not be regarded as wholly G unjustified was a possible view which it could form under sub- r. (3) of F.R. 54-B - Fundamental Rules - F.R. 54-8 (3), ,, ~ proviso. The respondent, who was working as a Bill Collector H 594 GREATER HYDERABAD MUNICIPAL CORPORATION 595 v. M. PRABHAKAR RAO _,, ,.., in the Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad, was placed A under suspension on 19.05, 1997 for demanding and accepting illegal gratification from the complainant for assessment of his house. On 28.06.2001, the competent authority revoked the suspension of the respondent and • reinstated him in service without prejudice to the B prosecution pending against him. The respondent was acquitted in the criminal case. The respondent's representation seeking back-wages for the suspension period and other consequential benefits was rejected by the competent authority holding that his suspension could not be regarded as wholly unjustified. However, the c O.A. filed by respondent was allowed by the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal. The writ petition filed by the employer was dismissed by the High Court . .... )· Allowing the appeal filed by the employer, the Court D .. HELD: 1.1 Sub-rule (3) of F.R. 54-B vests power on the authority competent to order reinstatement to form an opinion whether suspension of a Government servant was wholly unjustified and if, in his opinion, the E suspension of such Government servant is wholly unjustified, such Government servant will be paid full pay and allowances to which he would have been entitled, had he not been suspended. The proviso to sub-rule (3) .. ' of F.R. 54-B, however, states that where such authority F is of the opinion that the termination of the proceedings instituted against the Government servant had been delayed due to reasons directly attributable to the Government servant then the Government servant shall be paid for the period of such delay only such amount G (not being the whole) of such pay and allowances as it t may determine. Thus, even where the competent authority is of the opinion that the suspension was wholly unjustified, the Government servant may still not be entitled to be paid the whole pay and allowances, but H 596 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2011] 9 S.C.R. A may be paid such pay and allowances as may be determined by the competent authority. [Para 8] [600-G- H~ 601-A-C] 1.2. Therefore, even where the employee is acquitted 8 of the charges in the criminal trial for lack of evidence or otherwise, it is for the competent authority to form its opinion whether the suspension of the employee was wholly unjustified and so long as such opinion of the competent authority was a possible view in the facts and circumstances of the case and on the materials before C him, such opinion of the competent authority would not be interfered by the tribunal or the court. [Para 11) (605- B-D] 1.3.The rationale, on which sub-rule (3) of F.R. 54-B D is based, is that during the period of suspension an employee does not work and, therefore, he is not entitled to an
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.