Navigating Suspension: Rights, Entitlements and Liabilities of Maharashtra Civil Servants

Suspension is one of the most distressing phases in a public servant’s career. It is technically a temporary administrative measure, not a final penalty, yet the sudden loss of active duty, reduced income and social stigma are very real.

For Government employees in Maharashtra, suspension is governed mainly by Rule 4 of the Maharashtra Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1979 (“MCS (D&A) Rules”), read with the Maharashtra Civil Services (Joining Time, Foreign Service and Payments during Suspension, Dismissal and Removal) Rules, 1981 (“MCS Payments Rules”) and the Maharashtra Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1979.

Print Page

Whether Period Of Suspension Of Govt Servant should Be Treated As 'On Duty' Where Acquittal Based On Benefit Of Doubt?

In this regard we may refer to the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in Krishnakant Raghunath Bibhavnekar vs. State of Maharashtra and ors. MANU/SC/0337/1997 : 1997 3 SCC 636. The cause of suspension and initiation of punitive action based on the petitioner's conduct leading to his prosecution were found to be sufficient to hold such suspension to be justified therein. The following observations in paragraph 4 are relevant and the same are reproduced as under:

"4. ... If the conduct alleged is the foundation for prosecution, though it may end in acquittal on appreciation or lack of sufficient evidence, the question emerges whether the government servant prosecuted for commission of defalcation of public funds and fabrication of the records, though culminated into acquittal, is entitled to be reinstated with consequential benefits. In our considered view this grant of consequential benefits with all back wages etc. cannot be as a matter of course. We think that it would be deleterious to the maintenance of the discipline if a person suspended on valid considerations is given full back wages as a matter of course on his acquittal. Two courses are open to the disciplinary authority, viz., it may enquire into the misconduct unless, the selfsame conduct was subject of charge and on trial the acquittal was recorded on a positive finding that the accused did not commit the offence at all; but acquittal is not on benefit of doubt given. Appropriate action may be taken thereon. Even otherwise, the authority may, on reinstatement after following the principle of natural justice, pass appropriate order including treating suspension period as period of not on duty (and on payment of subsistence allowance etc.). Rules 72(3), 72(5) and 72(7) of the Rules give discretion to the disciplinary authority. Rule 72 also applies, as the action was taken after the acquittal by which date the Rule was in force. Therefore, when the suspension period was treated to be a suspension pending the trial and even after acquittal, he was reinstated into service, he would not be entitled to the consequential benefits. ..."

11. The Tribunal while considering the Original Application preferred by the petitioner has rightly held that the acquittal of the petitioner was after grant of benefit of doubt. Since the involvement of the petitioner was in a serious criminal offence and he was acquitted by giving him the benefit of doubt, it was held that the petitioner was not entitled for regularisation of the period of suspension by treating him to be "on duty". All relevant aspects of the matter have been considered by the Tribunal and we do not find any reason to take a different view from the one taken by it. It cannot be said that while passing the impugned order dated 13/04/2016 holding the petitioner not entitled to pay and allowances for the period of suspension, the Competent Authority acted arbitrarily. 

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY (NAGPUR BENCH)

Writ Petition No. 1917 of 2021

 Ravindra Prasad Munneshwar Prasad  Vs. Union of India and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

A.S. Chandurkar and G.A. Sanap, JJ.

Author: A.S. Chandurkar, J.

Decided On: 31.03.2022

Citation: MANU/MH/1079/2022

Print Page

Whether HC Can Initiate Disciplinary Proceedings Against Judicial Officer Facing Sexual Harassment Allegations?

 The provisions of the Act, complaint mechanism and
mechanism for constitution of the Internal Complaints
Committee, mechanism to inquire the complaint are all for
protection of dignity and welfare of women at workplace.
The provisions of Sections 11 and 13 in no manner affect
the control of the High Court under Article 235, which it
has with respect to judicial officers as noted above.
The power to suspend the judicial officer vests in the
High Court. The Full Court of the High court is in no

manner precluded from initiating disciplinary inquiry
against the petitioner and placing the petitioner under
suspension on being satisfied that sufficient material
existed. The High Court in its meeting dated 19.07.2016
has resolved to send the complaint of the employee to the
Internal Complaints Committee and the Internal Complaints
Committee having opined that inquiry need to be held,
further steps were taken in accordance with Act, 2013.
We, thus, are of the view that there is no error in the
decision of the Full Court dated 13.07.2016 to suspend
the petitioner and initiate the inquiry proceedings
against the petitioner.

REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITOIN (CIVIL) NO.705 OF 2018

P.S. MALIK  Vs  HIGH COURT OF DELHI 

ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.
Dated:August 21, 2019.

Print Page

Factors to be considered by disciplinary authority for suspension of employee prior to departmental enquiry

 The purpose of suspension of an employee in service jurisprudence is two fold. The traditional and dominant purpose of suspension is to aid and assist a disciplinary enquiry against an employee. Suspension in such cases is not a punishment. The second known purpose of suspension is to impose it as a punishment.

11. Law on suspension has been settled by high judicial authority. In the light of consistent judicial pronouncements, principles of the law on suspension can be stated.

12. When suspension is made in contemplation of a disciplinary enquiry, certain prerequisites have to be satisfied. An enquiry should be contemplated or underway into charges of misconduct. The charges of misconduct, if proved, should be serious enough to warrant a major penalty.

13. The order of suspension should be passed after due and independent application of mind. The suspension should not be made as a matter of routine resulting from a suspension syndrome.

14. At the stage of suspension the veracity of the charges cannot be ascertained and the merits of the defence cannot be examined. However, the order of suspension should disclose a prima facie act of misconduct.

15. Suspension in contemplation of an enquiry, is made to aid the process of enquiry. Suspension takes out the delinquent employee from his domain of influence. This ensures that the enquiry is independent and fair.

16. Suspension also takes off the charged employee from his regular duties. This enables the employee to join the enquiry proceedings and give fulsome cooperation to the enquiry officer. It also gives him adequate time to prepare his defence. Continuing the employee on regular duties, with an enquiry on foot, would not be in institutional interests either. The official work would suffer and the enquiry proceedings would be impeded. The suspension in such cases not a punishment.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD

Writ A. No. 20262 of 2018

Decided On: 03.10.2018

 Deepika Shukla  Vs.  State of U.P. and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Ajay Bhanot, J.

Citation: 2018 (6) AWC 6050.

Print Page

When period of suspension of employee can be treated as period on duty for computation of pension?

29) One cannot dispute in this case that the
suspension period was unduly long. We also find that
the delay in completion of the departmental
proceedings was not wholly attributable to the

appellant but it was equally attributable to the
respondents as well. Due to such unreasonable delay,
the appellant naturally suffered a lot because he and
his family had to survive only on suspension
allowance for a long period of 9 years.
30) We are constrained to observe as to why the
departmental proceeding, which involved only one
charge and that too uncomplicated, have taken more
than 9 years to conclude the departmental inquiry. No
justification was forthcoming from the respondents’
side to explain the undue delay in completion of the
departmental inquiry except to throw blame on the
appellant's conduct which we feel, was not fully
justified.
31) Time and again, this Court has emphasized that
it is the duty of the employer to ensure that the
departmental inquiry initiated against the delinquent
employee is concluded within the shortest possible
time by taking priority measures. In cases where the

delinquent is placed under suspension during the
pendency of such inquiry then it becomes all the more
imperative for the employer to ensure that the inquiry
is concluded in the shortest possible time to avoid any
inconvenience, loss and prejudice to the rights of the
delinquent employee.
32) As a matter of experience, we often notice that
after completion of the inquiry, the issue involved
therein does not come to an end because if the
findings of the inquiry proceedings have gone against
the delinquent employee, he invariably pursues the
issue in Court to ventilate his grievance, which again
consumes time for its final conclusion.
33) Keeping these factors in mind, we are of the
considered opinion that every employer (whether State
or private) must make sincere endeavor to conclude
the departmental inquiry proceedings once initiated
against the delinquent employee within a reasonable
time by giving priority to such proceedings and as far

as possible it should be concluded within six months
as an outer limit. Where it is not possible for the
employer to conclude due to certain unavoidable
causes arising in the proceedings within the time
frame then efforts should be made to conclude within
reasonably extended period depending upon the cause
and the nature of inquiry but not more than a year.
34) Now coming to the facts of the case in hand, we
find that the respondent has fixed the appellant's
pension after excluding the period of suspension (9
years and 26 days). In other words, the respondents
while calculating the qualifying service of the appellant
for determining his pension did not take into account
the period of suspension from 06.02.1990 to
01.03.1999.
35) Having regard to the totality of the facts and the
circumstances, which are taken note of supra, we are
of the view that the period of suspension should have
been taken into account by the respondents for

determining the appellant's pension and we
accordingly do so.
36) In view of foregoing discussion, the appeal
succeeds and is allowed in part only to the extent
indicated above in relation to fixation of appellant's
pension. The respondents are accordingly directed to
re-determine the appellant’s pension by taking into
account the period of suspension (06.02.1990 to
01.03.1999) and then pay to the appellant arrears of
the difference amount from the date he became eligible
to claim pension and then to continue to pay the
appellant re-determined pension regularly in future as
per Rules. It is to be done within three months from
the date of receipt of this order. 
Reportable
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL No.958 OF 2010
Prem Nath Bali 
V
Registrar, High Court of
Delhi & Anr.
Dated;December 16, 2015.
Citation:(2015) 16 SCC415

Print Page

When period of suspension should be taken into consideration for determining pension of employee?

One cannot dispute in this case that the
suspension period was unduly long. We also find that
the delay in completion of the departmental
proceedings was not wholly attributable to the

appellant but it was equally attributable to the
respondents as well. Due to such unreasonable delay,
the appellant naturally suffered a lot because he and
his family had to survive only on suspension
allowance for a long period of 9 years.
30) We are constrained to observe as to why the
departmental proceeding, which involved only one
charge and that too uncomplicated, have taken more
than 9 years to conclude the departmental inquiry. No
justification was forthcoming from the respondents’
side to explain the undue delay in completion of the
departmental inquiry except to throw blame on the
appellant's conduct which we feel, was not fully
justified.
31) Time and again, this Court has emphasized that
it is the duty of the employer to ensure that the
departmental inquiry initiated against the delinquent
employee is concluded within the shortest possible
time by taking priority measures. In cases where the

delinquent is placed under suspension during the
pendency of such inquiry then it becomes all the more
imperative for the employer to ensure that the inquiry
is concluded in the shortest possible time to avoid any
inconvenience, loss and prejudice to the rights of the
delinquent employee.
32) As a matter of experience, we often notice that
after completion of the inquiry, the issue involved
therein does not come to an end because if the
findings of the inquiry proceedings have gone against
the delinquent employee, he invariably pursues the
issue in Court to ventilate his grievance, which again
consumes time for its final conclusion.
33) Keeping these factors in mind, we are of the
considered opinion that every employer (whether State
or private) must make sincere endeavor to conclude
the departmental inquiry proceedings once initiated
against the delinquent employee within a reasonable
time by giving priority to such proceedings and as far

as possible it should be concluded within six months
as an outer limit. Where it is not possible for the
employer to conclude due to certain unavoidable
causes arising in the proceedings within the time
frame then efforts should be made to conclude within
reasonably extended period depending upon the cause
and the nature of inquiry but not more than a year.
34) Now coming to the facts of the case in hand, we
find that the respondent has fixed the appellant's
pension after excluding the period of suspension (9
years and 26 days). In other words, the respondents
while calculating the qualifying service of the appellant
for determining his pension did not take into account
the period of suspension from 06.02.1990 to
01.03.1999.
35) Having regard to the totality of the facts and the
circumstances, which are taken note of supra, we are
of the view that the period of suspension should have
been taken into account by the respondents for

determining the appellant's pension and we
accordingly do so.
Reportable
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL No.958 OF 2010
Prem Nath Bali ……Appellant(s)
VERSUS
Registrar, High Court of
Delhi & Anr. ……Respondent(s)
Dated;December 16, 2015.
Citation; AIR 2015 SC 101

Abhay Manohar Sapre, J.

Print Page

Supreme Court: Employee is not entitled to get increment when he is suspended

Increment has a definite concept in service law jurisprudence. It is an increase or addition on a fixed scale; it is a regular increase in salary on such a scale. As noted in SBI v. Central Government Labour Court, (1972) 3 SCC 595, under the labour and industrial laws, an increment is when in a timescale of pay an employee advances from the lower point of scale to the higher by periodic additions. In other words, it is addition in the same scale and not to a higher scale. An increment is an incidence of employment and an employee gets an increment by working the full year and drawing full salary. During the period of suspension, the contract of service remains suspended. The order of suspension by the departmental enquiry has the effect of temporarily suspending the relations between the master and servant with the consequence that the servant is not bound to render service and, therefore, an employee is not entitled to increments during this period which is taken as period not spent on duty.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

C.A. No. 5523 of 2013 (@ SLP(C) No. 9338 of 2012)

Decided On: 17.07.2013

State of Punjab Vs. Jaswant Singh Kanwar

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:H.L. Dattu and Dipak Misra, JJ.

Equivalent Citation:(2014)13 SCC 622

Print Page

Whether suspension of employee results in suspension of all privileges and benefits attached to office?

Equivalent Citation:(2014)13 SCC 622

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

C.A. No. 5523 of 2013 (@ SLP(C) No. 9338 of 2012)

Decided On: 17.07.2013

Appellants: State of Punjab
Vs.
Respondent: Jaswant Singh Kanwar

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:H.L. Dattu and Dipak Misra, JJ.

To analyze the above proposition, the dictionary meaning of suspension is required to be set out. The term 'Suspend' would mean 'to debar usually, for a time, from any privilege, the execution of an office or from the enjoyment of an income'. It is temporary deprivation of office or privilege. By reason of suspension, the powers, functions and privileges remain in abeyance but one continues to be subjected to the same discipline and penalties and to the same authorities'. The above definition makes it clear that during the period of suspension, all the privileges and benefits attached to the office is temporarily suspended unless the period of suspension is considered as the period spent on duty.

Print Page

Whether suspension of employee on last day of service is illegal?

CHENNAI: There is nothing illegal about government servants being placed under suspension on the last day of their service, the Madras high court has said, refusing to quash the suspension of a civil supplies officer on the eve of his retirement. 

Justice S Vaidyanathan, dismissing the petition filed by V Murugan, who was slapped with five charges a few days ahead of his April 1, 2015 retirement and placed under suspension on March 30, said: "There is no hard and fast rule that an employee cannot be placed under suspension on the last day of his service. If the prayer of this petitioner is allowed, then persons like him may commit misconduct during the last month of their service and take a plea that no charge memo or suspension order can be levied against the employee." 

Print Page

Supreme Court: Suspended employee should not be denied subsistence allowance if he is not residing at the headquarters

 From the aforesaid authority it is clear as day that the presence at the headquarters was not a requirement under the Rule. In the case at hand, there is no rule that provides that the suspended employee should remain at the headquarters to be entitled to get subsistence allowance. That apart, as is evident, the Respondent herein had clearly stated about his financial condition and his inability to remain at the headquarters. It is not the case of the functionaries of the State that he was asked to furnish a certificate and he did not furnish. The whole case rests on the fact that as the Respondent-employee did not remain at the headquarters no subsistence allowance was paid. We have noted the aforesaid authorities as doctrince of prejudice has been associated with non-payment of subsistence allowance. We need not dwell on the concept of absolute position in law. We are only inclined to state that it would depend upon the stipulations made in the rules and the facts of the case. We may hasten to clarify that rules made by the Competent Authority are always subject to their constitutional validity. As far as the present case is concerned the facts do clearly reveal that the salary that was due to the Respondent was not paid for unfathomable reason. The subsistence allowance was not paid on the singular ground that he had not stayed at the headquarters despite a stipulation in the order of suspension. The Respondent had submitted number of representations with regard to his penurious condition to stay at the headquarters and participate in the disciplinary proceedings. There is nothing in the Rules which would require for a suspended employee to remain at the headquarters. Thus, in the present case, even if the doctrince prejudice is applied, it is quite obvious that the Respondent herein was absolutely handicapped to participate in the departmental proceedings and hence, prejudice was caused. In this backdrop, we do not find any error in the conclusion arrived at by the High Court as far as the quashing of order of punishment is concerned. 1

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Civil Appeal No. 6265 of 2013 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 35698 of 2011)

Decided On: 26.07.2013

Appellants: State of Bihar and Ors.
Vs.
Respondent: Arbind

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:Anil R. Dave and Dipak Misra, JJ.1

Citation; AIR 2013 SC 3329

Print Page