UNION OF INDIA versus MADHUSUDAN PRASAD

Citation: [2003] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 1026 · Decided: 28-10-2003 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K.G. BALAKRISHNAN · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
UNION OF INDIA 
v. 
MADHUSUDAN PRASAD 
OCTOBER 28, 2003 
B 
[K.G. BALAKRISHNAN AND DR. AR. LAKSHMANAN, JJ.] 
Service Law : 
, 
Fundamental Rules : 
C 
F.R. 54-Back wages on order of reinstatement-C.R.PF-Employee 
overstayed leave-He was treated as a deserter-Warrant of his arrest 
issued-Penalty of 15 days rigoro1is imprisonment awarded by Magistrate-
Consequently Department ordered his dismissal from service-Appellate 
·authority set aside the order and directed reinsta_tement-Period ft·om the 
D date of dismissal till reinstatement to be treated as dies-non-Writ petition 
by employee for salary for the period he remained out of service-Allowed 
by High Court-Held, the employee was removed from service without any 
inquiry and he was not even given show cause notice prior to his dismissal 
from service-There was fault on the part of the employer in not fo//Qwing 
the principle of natural justice-High Court ordered payment of back 
E wages-This is not a fit case where the Fundamental Rule 54 could have 
been invoked by the authorities. 
F 
G 
Managing Director, ECIL v. S. Karunakar, (1993) 4 SCC 727, 
distinguished. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 5909 of 
2002. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 28.6.2001 of the Patna High 
Court in LP.A. No. 1354 of 1998. 
N.N. Goswami, A.K. Srivastava and Ms. Sushma Suri for the 
Appellant. 
K.K. Gupta for the Respondent. 
H 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
1026 
U.0.1. v. MADHUSUDAN PRASAD 
1027 
Union of India c}lallenges the order passed by the Division Bench of A 
the High Court of Patna. Respondent Madhusudan Prasad was a Safai 
Karamchari in CRPF. In the year 1994 he proceeded on leave and he should 
have reported for duty on 31.3.1994. Even after the expiry of the leave, 
he did not report for duty and overstayed leave without giving any 
information. The authorities treated him a deserter and issued a warrant of B 
arrest and he was produced before the Chief Judicial magistrate-cum-
Commandant. The Magistrate imposed him a penalty of I 5 days rigorous 
imprisonment. After the imposition of the penalty, the Commandant or 
CRPF issued an order of dismissal from service. Aggrieved by this order 
of dismissal, the respondent preferred an appeal and the appellate authority C 
held that the disciplinary authority should have afforded reasonable 
opportunity to the respondent and as the respondent was not served with 
any show cause notice nor there was any enquiry preceding the dismissal, 
the order passed by the disciplinary authority was set aside and directed 
to reinstate the respondent in servic~ The appellate authority further 
observed that the period of absence from the date of dismissal from service D 
i.e. 7 .11.1994 till the reinstatement shall be treated as dies-non though there 
shall not be break in service for the purpose of pensionary benefits. 
Pursuant to the order passed by the appellate authority, the respondent 
was reinstated in service on 15.2.1996. The respondent thereafter filed a E 
Writ Petition before the High Court praying that he may be paid salary for 
the period 7 .11.1994, that is the date of dismissal, to 15 .2.1996, that is the 
date of reinstatement. The learned Single Judge held that the respondent 
was entitled to get salary for the period he was out of service. 
Aggrieved by this order, Union of India preferred LPA before the F 
Division Bench, but the Division Bench disposed of the matter affirming 
the order passed by the learned Single Judge and hence this appeal by way 
of SLP. 
We heard the counsel for the Union of India and it was submitted that G 
the respondent was not entitled to get salary for the period from 7 .11. I 994 
to 15.2.1996 in view of the order passed by the appellate authority. It was 
submitted that the Fundamental Rule 54 enables the Government to pass 
such an order and it was argued in appropriate case the authorities can pass 
an order denying salary to the employee when reinstatement is ordered as H 
1028 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2003] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 
A a result of appeal or review. Fundamental Rule 54 reads as follows : 
B 
c 
"Where a Government servant who has been dismissed, 
removed or compulsory retired is reinstated as a result of appeal 
or review or would have been so reinstated but for his retirement 
on superannuation while under suspension or not, the authority 
competent to order reinstatement shall consider and make a 
specific order - (a) regarding the pay and 

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