This High Court of Chhattisgarh dismissed a writ appeal questioning an order that barred a suspended teacher from full salary and allowances. The court held that since the suspension was not found wholly unjustified, the principle of 'no-work no-pay' applied under Fundamental Rules.
Appeal dismissed with no order as to costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
Judgment Reserved on 02.08.2017
Judgment Delivered on 17.08.2017
Writ Appeal No. 241 of 2016
S. K. Singh S/o Late Shri Ramakant Singh Aged About 51 Years Working As Upper Division Teacher Middle School Dadhaulipara Block Lundra, District Surguja Chhattisgarh Permanent R/o Namnakala, Ambikapur, District Surguja Chhattisarh
---- Appellant
Versus
---- Respondents
For Appellant : Mr. V.K. Pandey, Advocate For Respondent -State : Mr. P.N. Bharat, Additional Advocate General
Hon'ble Shri Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Sharad Kumar Gupta, Judge
C.A.V. JUDGMENT
Per Sharad Kumar Gupta, Judge
2
3
“ F.R. 54-B. (1) When a Government servant, who has been suspended, is re-instated or would have been so reinstated but for his retirement on superannuation while under suspension, the authority competent to order re-instatement shall consider and make specific order-
(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in rule 53, where a government servant under suspension, dies 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.
(3) Where the authority competent to order re-instatement is of the opinion that the suspension was wholly unjustified, the Government servant, shall subject to the provisions of sub-rule (8), be paid the full pay and allowances to which he would have been entitled, had he not been suspended:
Provided that where such authority 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, it may, after giving him an opportunity to make his representation within 60 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.”
4
Sd/Sd/-
(Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan) (Sharad Kumar Gupta) CHIEF JUSTICE JUDGE
kishore
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a suspended government servant entitled to full salary when punished only with warning as minor penalty.
Whether departmental circular entitling full salary prevails over provisions of Fundamental Rules.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
S. K. Singh
State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Tribal Development Department
The Commissioner, Surguja Division
The Collector & District Election Officer Ambikapur
Assistant Commissioner, Tribal Development Ambikapur
Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan
Sharad Kumar Gupta
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
