1987 (9) TMI 431 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of the Government to continue departmental proceedings post-retirement.
2. Entitlement of the petitioner to full salary for the suspension period.
3. Applicability of Rule 97 of the Bihar Service Code.
4. Compliance with principles of natural justice.
5. Treatment of the suspension period as duty for all purposes.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Jurisdiction of the Government to Continue Departmental Proceedings Post-Retirement:
The court held that the Government had no jurisdiction to continue the departmental proceeding after the retirement of the petitioner, as per the rules included in the Bihar Service Code. Consequently, the portion of the impugned order in Annexure-34 imposing punishment was quashed.

2. Entitlement of the Petitioner to Full Salary for the Suspension Period:
There was a divergence of opinion between the judges on this issue. One judge held that a Government servant cannot be entitled to full pay in every case where a disciplinary proceeding ends without imposing punishment. The other judge believed that the discretion to refuse full salary could only be exercised in cases covered by Sub-rule (3) of Rule 97, and since the present case was not governed by said Sub-rule, the petitioner's claim to salary could not be legitimately refused.

3. Applicability of Rule 97 of the Bihar Service Code:
The petitioner's right to salary for the suspension period was to be determined under Sub-rules (2) and (3) of Rule 97. Sub-rule (2) applies when a Government servant is fully exonerated or the suspension is found wholly unjustified, entitling him to full pay and allowances. Sub-rule (3) applies to all other cases, where the competent authority prescribes the proportion of pay and allowances. The court found that the petitioner was neither fully exonerated nor was his suspension found wholly unjustified, thus falling under Sub-rule (3).

4. Compliance with Principles of Natural Justice:
The petitioner argued that he was denied a reasonable opportunity to be heard, citing precedents like B. D. Gupta v. State of Haryana and Gopalkrishna Naidu v. State of Madhya Pradesh. However, the court held that the petitioner had placed his case in full and the respondents had thoroughly considered it before taking the decision. Therefore, the requirements of natural justice were deemed satisfied, and no further enquiry was necessary.

5. Treatment of the Suspension Period as Duty for All Purposes:
The court noted that Sub-rules (4) and (5) of Rule 97 deal with whether the period of suspension should be treated as duty. Sub-rule (4) applies if Sub-rule (2) is satisfied, treating the period as duty for all purposes. Sub-rule (5) applies if Sub-rule (3) is satisfied, treating the period as duty only if specifically directed by the competent authority. The court found that since the case fell under Sub-rule (3), Sub-rule (4) was excluded, and the competent authority's direction under Sub-rule (5) was upheld.

Conclusion:
The court set aside the punishments imposed by Annexure-34 but rejected the petitioner's prayer to quash the remaining part of the said annexure. The writ application was allowed in part, with each party bearing its own costs.