9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Duty of the competent authority to afford an opportunity to the appellant to show cause before forming an opinion on exoneration and justification of suspension. 2. Interpretation of Fundamental Rule 54 and its application to the case. 3. Whether the order passed under Fundamental Rule 54 was a consequential order or required a separate opportunity for the appellant to show cause. Detailed Analysis: 1. The first issue revolves around whether the competent authority was obligated to provide the appellant with an opportunity to present his case before determining if he was fully exonerated and if his suspension was unjustified. Fundamental Rule 54 mandates that upon reinstatement of a government servant, the authority must decide on pay, allowances, and whether the period of absence should be treated as duty based on exoneration and justification of suspension. The absence of a specific provision for a show-cause opportunity does not negate the implied duty to act judicially. The failure to provide such an opportunity renders the order invalid for breaching the principles of natural justice, as established in previous legal precedents. 2. The interpretation and application of Fundamental Rule 54 form the core of the second issue. The rule outlines the considerations for reinstated government servants, distinguishing between full exoneration and unjustified suspension leading to different entitlements. The authority's decision under this rule must be objective, based on a comprehensive review of facts and circumstances. The order's impact on the government servant's rights and finances necessitates a fair and just process, indicating a duty to act in accordance with principles of justice and fair play. 3. The final issue questions whether the order under Fundamental Rule 54 was a consequential outcome of a departmental inquiry or a separate decision requiring a show-cause opportunity. While a departmental inquiry typically provides a chance for the employee to present their case, certain circumstances, as outlined in legal provisions, may lead to orders without such inquiries. In cases where no inquiry is held, the authority must base its decision on available facts, necessitating a fair process to prevent prejudice. The failure to afford a show-cause opportunity renders the order invalid, requiring a reconsideration with due process. In conclusion, the Supreme Court held that the competent authority must provide the appellant with a reasonable opportunity to show cause before making a decision under Fundamental Rule 54. The absence of such an opportunity rendered the original order invalid, emphasizing the need to adhere to principles of natural justice and fair play. The ruling set aside the High Court's decision, directing a fresh consideration with due process and awarding costs to the appellant.
|
