FINANCE & PLANNING (FW.FR.11) DEPARTMENT
G.O.Ms.No.214 Dated:22-12-1997
Read the following: -
1. G.O.Ms.No.238, Genl. Admn. (Ser.C)
Dept., dated 7-4-1992.
2. G.O.Ms.No.182, Fin. & Plg.
(FW.FR.II) Dept., dated 31-10-1992.
3. G.O.Ms.No.59, Fin. & Plg (FW.FR.II)
Dept., dated 27-3-1995.
4. D.O.Lr.No.277/LSP/RL/58/97, dated
28-5-1997 of the Secretary to Government, Legal Affairs.
ORDER
In the Government Order first read above orders were issued based on the Government of India Memo. No:11012/15/85 Estt. (A), dated 3-12-1985 amending the instruction 19 in APPENDIX-VI to the Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (C&CA) Rules, 1963. It was also indicated therein that necessary amendment to Fundamental Rules will be issued separately. The Government have issued orders in the Government Order second read above, amending the FR. 54. B adding proviso to sub-rule (5) allowing the benefit of these orders to the cases where suspension order is passed on or after 7-4-1992. Orders were issued in the Government Order third read above omitting the expression "on or after 7-4-1992".
2. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India
have pronounced a Judgement in K.R. Bibhavnekar Vs. State of Maharashtra
reported in 1997(3) Scale 180 on the question of entitlement of an employee to
consequential benefits on re-instatement following acquittal in Criminal trial.
The gist of the judgement is as follows
"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. He is also not entitled to be treated as on duty from the date or acquittal for purpose of computation or pensionary benefits".
3. Further while interpreting FR.54.B, the
Andhra Pradesh High Court by its judgement in M.Y. Narasimhacharyulu Vs. the
Registrar (Administration), High Court or Andhra Pradesh ( 1995(1) An. WR.165)
has observed as follows :-
"Where a Government servant departmentally proceeded against has been found guilty or the charges and penalty is imposed and during the pendency of the enquiry or for a part of it he had continued under suspension, the suspension could not be said to be wholly unjustified. The use or the word "wholly" as qualifying the word "unjustified" signified that for the Government servant to become entitled to the full pay and allowances, the suspension must have been completely irrational without there being any material to support the action of suspension. While such a conclusion is possible to be reached where the Officer is fully exonerated, it will not be possible to say the same thing when in fact he has been found guilty and punished."
4. In view of the above observations of the High Court, suspension can be termed as "wholly unjustified" when the delinquent is fully exonerated in disciplinary proceedings and then only, he is entitled to full pay and allowances for the suspension period. On the other hand, where a penalty has been imposed in the disciplinary proceedings, the suspension can be treated as justified and delinquent employee in such case will be paid such pay and allowances as the competent authority may determine keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case. This view is fortified in view of the recent judgement of the Supreme Court in Krishnakant Raghunath Bibhavnekar Vs. State of Maharashtra (1997(3) SCALE 180) wherein the Court held that acquittal in a criminal case followed by reinstatement will not be entitled for grant of consequential benefits to a suspended employee, as a matter of course.
5. Keeping in view the above judgements, the Government have examined the issue in detail and decided to amend the sub-rule (5) or rule 54.B of the Fundamental Rules.
6. The Government also direct that these orders shall come into force from the date of these orders. Past cases already decided, need not be reopened.
NOTIFICATION
2. The amendment hereby made shall come into force with immediate effect.
(By Order
and in the name of the Governor of Andhra Pradesh)
