Supreme Court of India
SMT. K. PONNAMMA versus THE STATE OF KERALA AND ORS. on 17 March 1997
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
I
SMT. K. PONNAMMA
v.
THE STATE OF KERALA AND ORS.
MARCH 17, 1997
B
[K. RAMASWAMY AND G.T. NANAVATI, JJ.]
Kerala Service Rules:
Rules 56 and 57-Payment of salary for the period of suspen-sion-Pending tJial for an offence u/ss. 302 and 201 1.P.C., the employee remained under suspensio11-Trial ended in acquittal of employee giving her benefit of doubt--011 acquittal, departmental inqui1y conducted-Authority concemed found that payment of salary during the period of suspension, except the suspension allowance already paid, could not be granted-Held, the order is in accordance with the Rules.
C
D
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Special Leave Petition (C) No. 4885 of 1997.
From the Judgment and Order dated 7.11.96 of the Kerala High Court in W.A. No. 850 of 1996.
E
E.M.S. Anam for the Petitioner.
The following Order of the Court was delivered :
This special leave petition has been filed against the Judgment of the F Kerala High Court, made on November 7, 1996 in Writ Appeal No. 850/1996.
Admittedly, the petitioner and her husband were charged for an offence under Section 302 and also Section 201 I.P.C. etc. While the husband of the petitioner was convicted, she was acquitted of the offences G under Section 301 and also 201, getting her the benefit of doubt. Conse-quently, she was reinstated into service but back wages were denied, after conducting the enquiry under Kerala Service Rules. Rules 57 of the Rules provides that :
"An Officer who is detained in custody, whether on a criminal H 1149
A
A charge or otherwise, for a perfo<l exceeding forty eight hours, or is undergoing imprisonment, shall be deemed to be under suspen-sion with effect from the date of commencement of the detention or imprisonment, as the case may be, and shall not be allowed to draw any pay and allowances <luring such period of suspension other than any subsistence allowance and other allowances that B may be granted in accordance with Rule55, until he is reinstated in service."
c
D
E
Ruic 56 of the Rules provides thus:
"(1) When an officer who has been dismissed, removed or eom-pulsary retired including an officer who has been compulsory retired under rule 60A, is reinstated as a result of appeal or review or would have been so reinstated, but for his retirement on super-annuation while under suspension or not, the authority competent to order reinstatement shall consider and make specific order:
(a) regarding the pay and allowances to be paid to the officer for the period of his absence from duty including the period of suspension preceding his dismissal, removal, or compulsory retire-ment, as the case may be, (b) whether or not the said perio_d shall be treated as a period spent on duty."
A reading thereof would clearly indicate that where an officer has been kept under suspension, on account of the pendency of the char-F ges/detention for 48 hours and continued to remain under suspension pending the trial of the criminal charge, statutorily he/she is disabled to perform the duties of the post. On reinstatement under Rule 56, the competent authority shall have a duty to consider whether, on reinstate-ment, suspended officer would be entitled to the payment of full pay etc. for the period of his suspension. The mandate of Rule 56 is that the G competent authority should consider the case in accordance with the rules and pass the order. The nature of the order is discretionary depending upon the facts in the case. It is seen that on account of the involvement of the petitioner in a criminal charge by statutory operation, she was under suspension till she was a~quitte<l. On acquittal, the departmental enquiry H was conducted as to the nature of the order to be made under Rule 56.
K..fONNAMMA v. STATE
K..fONNAMMA v. STATE
Accordingly, the authority, in its discretion, found that the payment of the A --salary during the period of suspension except suspension allowance already paid, could not be granted. It being iJ?- accordance with the Rules, we do not think that the High Court has committed any et ror warranting inter-ference.
B
The special leave petition is dismissed.
R.P.
Petition dismissed.