Sunil Kumar vs State of U.P. Thru. Chief Secy. Lko. and 4 Others

Petition has been filed challenging order dated 27th February 2025 whereby remaining salary and allowances of suspension period from 14th June 2023 till 24th May 2024 have been denied. Prayer for a direction to opposite parties for the aforesaid payment has been made.

¶13

It has been submitted by learned counsel for petitioner that earlier during the course of his service, a charge sheet dated 14th June 2023 was issued to him pertaining to charges of embezzlement. In pursuance thereof, he was placed under suspension from service vide order dated 14th June 2023. The disciplinary proceedings thereafter culminated by passing of punishment order dated 24th May 2024 inflicting punishment of stoppage of four increments upon petitioner along with adverse entry in the annual character roll.

¶14

It is submitted that in terms of Rule 54-B of the financial handbook, notice was issued to petitioner on 25th July 2024 to show cause why salary for the period of suspension may not be withheld. Reply to the aforesaid show cause notice was submitted on 8th August 2024 whereafter order dated 29th August 2024 was passed withholding salary payment for aforesaid suspension period.

¶15

It is submitted that said order was challenged before this court in writ A

¶16

WRIA No. 7924 of 2025

¶17

2

¶18

No. 9507 of 2024 which was allowed by means of judgment and order dated 18th October 2024 primarily on the ground that the order impugned therein had been passed without recording any reasons. Liberty was also granted to opposite parties to pass fresh order with expedition say within a period of two months from the date a certified copy of the order was produced.

¶19

It is submitted that despite stipulated time frame, impugned order has been passed beyond the aforesaid time frame without seeking any extension of time from this court. It is further submitted that despite specific direction having been issued to the opposite parties to consider the case of petitioner in light of proviso to clause 54-B of the Financial Handbook Volume II (parts 2 to 4), no such exercise or reasons have been indicated in the impugned order, which again has been passed in terms of earlier order dated 29th August 2024, which has already been quashed by this court.

¶20

Learned state counsel on the basis of the counter affidavit has refuted submissions advanced by learned counsel for petitioner and submits that clause 54-B indicates various conditions for grant of pay and allowances for the period of suspension. It is submitted that since petitioner has been found guilty of charges of embezzlement in the disciplinary proceedings, he was not held entitled for pay and allowances for the period of suspension particularly looking to the gravity of charges which have been established against petitioner. It is also submitted that it is after scrutiny of the reply submitted by petitioner on 8th August 2024 and the inquiry report dated 30th December 2023 that the embezzlement of amount of Rs.39,91,193/- has been found established and it is in terms of Rule 54-B(3) that the authority competent to order reinstatement is to take a decision for payment of full pay and allowances to the delinquent applicant if such an authority is of the opinion that suspension was unjustified.

¶21

It is submitted that since in the impugned order, petitioner's suspension has been held to be justified in view of gravity of charges levelled against him which have been found established in inquiry proceedings, the application of petitioner for payment of full pay and allowances for the period of suspension has been rejected. It is therefore submitted that reasons have been adequately explained in the impugned order itself.

¶22

Upon consideration of submissions advanced by learned counsel for

¶23

WRIA No. 7924 of 2025

¶24

3

¶25

parties and perusal of material on record, it is evident that in the earlier round of litigation, petitioner had challenged order dated 29th August 2024 in writ A No. 9507 of 2024 whereby his application for grant of full pay and allowances for the period of suspension was rejected. The said petition has been allowed by means of judgment and order dated 18th October 2024 primarily on the ground that the order impugned did not indicate any reasons and was virtually non-speaking in nature. It was in such circumstances that liberty was granted to the authority concerned to pass orders afresh.

¶26

Judgment and order dated 18th October 2024 also indicates the fact that the authority was required to consider petitioner's application in terms of proviso to clause 54-B(iii) on the relevant aspect in case the delinquent employee was responsible for delaying the inquiry proceedings.

¶27

Provisions of Clause 54-B of the Fundamental Rules are as follows:-

¶28

"54-B. (1) When a Government servant who has been suspended is reinstated or would have been so reinstated but for his retirement on superannuation while under suspension, the authority competent to order reinstatement shall consider and make a specific order-

¶29

(a) regarding the pay and allowances to be paid to the Government servant for the period of suspension ending with reinstatement or the date of his retirement or superannuation as the case may be, and

¶30

(b) whether or not the said period shall be treated as a period spent on duty.

¶31

(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in Rule 53, where a Government servant under suspension does before the disciplinary or Court proceedings instituted against him are concluded, the period between the date of suspension and the date of death shall be treated as duty for all purposes and his family shall be paid the full pay and allowances for that period to which he would have been entitled had he not been suspended, subject to adjustment in respect of subsistence allowance already paid.

¶32

(3) Where the authority competent to order reinstatement is of the opinion that the suspension was wholly unjustified, the Government servant shall, subject to the provisions of sub-rule (8), to be paid the full pay and allowances to which he would have been entitled, had he not been suspended:

¶33

Provided that where such authority is of the opinion that the termination of the

¶34

WRIA No. 7924 of 2025

¶35

4

¶36

proceedings instituted against the Government servant had been delayed due to reasons directly attributable to the Government servant it may, after giving him an opportunity to make his representation within sixty days from the date on which the communication in this regard is served on him and after considering the representation, if any submitted by him, direct, for reasons to be recorded in writing that the Government servant shall be paid for the period of such delay only such amount (not being the whole) of such pay and allowances as it may determine.

¶37

(4) In a case falling under sub-rule (3) the period of suspension shall be treated as a period spent on duty for all purposes.

¶38

(5) In cases other than those falling under sub-rules (2) and (3), the Gov-ernment servant shall subject to the provisions of sub-rules (8) and (9), be paid such amount (not being the whole) of the pay and allowances to which he would have been entitledhad he not been suspended, as the competent authority may determine, after giving notice to the Government servant of the quantum proposed and after considering the representation, if any, submitted by him in that connection within such period (which in no case shall exceed sixty days from the date on which the notice has been served) as may be specified in the notice.

¶39

(6) Where suspension is revoked pending finalisation of the disciplinary or Court proceedings, any order passed under sub-rule (1), before the conclusion of the proceedings against the Government servant, shall be reviewed on its own motion after the conclusion of the proceedings by the authority mentioned in sub-rule (1), who shall make an order according to the provisions of sub-rule (3) or sub rule (5), as the case may be.

¶40

(7) In a case falling under sub-rule (5) the period of suspension shall not be treated as a period spent on duty unless the competent authority specifically directs that it shall be so treated for any specified purpose:

¶41

Provided that if the Government servant desires, such authority may order that the period of suspension shall be converted into leave of any kind due and admissible to the Government servant.

¶42

Note-The order of the competent authority under the proceeding proviso shall be absolute and no higher sanction shall be necessary for the grant of-

¶43

(a) Extraordinary leave in excess of three months in the case of temporary

¶44

WRIA No. 7924 of 2025

¶45

5

¶46

Government servant; and

¶47

(b) Leave of any kind in excess of five years in the case of permanent Government servant.

¶48

(8) The payment of allowances under sub-rule (2), sub-rule (3) or sub-rule (5) shall be subject to all other conditions under which such allowances admissible.

¶49

(9) The amount determined under the proviso to sub-rule (3) or under sub-rule (5) shall not be less than the subsistence allowance and other allowances admissible under Rule 53.

¶50

(10) Any payment made under this rule to Government servant on his re-instatement shall be subject to adjustment of the amount, if any, earned by him through an employment during the period between the date of suspension and the date of reinstatement or the date of retirement on superannuation while under suspension. Where the emoluments admissible under this rule are equal to or less than those earned during the employment elsewhere, nothing shall be paid to the Government servant.

¶51

Note. Where the Government servant does not report for duty within reasonable time after the issue of the order of reinstatement after suspension, no pay and allowances will be paid to him for such period till he actually takes over charge."

¶52

Upon applicability of aforesaid aspects in the present facts and circumstances of the case, it is thus evident that proviso to clause 54-B(iii) clearly stipulates that where authority is of the opinion that termination of proceedings instituted against the government servant had been delayed due to reasons directly attributable to the government servant, it may after giving opportunity of hearing to such employee pass appropriate orders with regard to pay and allowances admissible to such an employee during the period of suspension.

¶53

In the present facts, it is evident from the judgment and order dated 18th October 2024 that directions have been issued to the authority concerned to take a decision particularly in light of the proviso to clause 54-B(iii) of the Fundamental Rules.

¶54

Despite such specific directions having been made, the application of petitioner has been rejected again only on the ground of seriousness of

¶55

WRIA No. 7924 of 2025

¶56

6

¶57

charges levelled against petitioner having been found established. The authority has adverted only to the provisions of clause 54-B(iii) of the Financial Handbook completely ignoring the proviso thereto.

¶58

A perusal of impugned order will make it evident that there is no finding recorded by the authorities concerned that termination of inquiry proceedings instituted against petitioner were delayed on account of factors directly attributable to him.

¶59

In the considered opinion of this court, the opposite parties have placed reliance on a provision which was inapplicable with regard to petitioner and have omitted to record findings with regard to the provision which in fact was not only applicable upon petitioner but for which positive direction had been issued by this court.

¶60

Although in view of a finding being recorded by this court that the order impugned does not advert to the aspects which were applicable upon petitioner and in normal circumstances, the matter would be remanded for consideration afresh but in the present case since such a liberty has already been granted by this court earlier, which has not in taken advantage of by the opposite parties, this court does not deem it appropriate to prolong the agony of petitioner by remanding the matter afresh.

¶61

In view of discussion made herein above, the impugned order dated 27th February 2025 is hereby quashed by issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari. Further, a writ in the nature of Mandamus is issued commanding the opposite parties to make payment of full pay and allowances to petitioner for the period of suspension with effect from 14th June 2023 till 24th May 2024 expeditiously within a period of eight weeks from the date a certified copy of this order is served upon concerned authority.

¶62

Resultantly, the petition succeeds and is allowed. Parties to bear their own costs.

¶63

(Manish Mathur,J.)

¶64

February 20, 2026 prabhat

¶65

Digitally signed by :- PRABHAT KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Sunil Kumar v. State of U.P. Thru. Chief Secy. Lko. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sunil Kumar v. State of U.P. Thru. Chief Secy. Lko. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Pannelal (PNO-122380152) vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy., Deptt. of Home, Lko. and 3 Others

Smt. Meena Devi vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy., Deptt. of Home, Lko. and 5 Others

Rajesh Mishra vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Arvind Kumar Yadav vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy./ Secy. Food Safety and Drug Administration Deptt. Lko. and 2 Others

Udai Veer Singh and 3 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Revenue, Lucknow and 2 Others

Umesh Chandra Tiwari (S.I. PNO-870920529) and 10 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P., Lko. and 2 Others