Court affirms competent authority’s discretion under DVC Service Regulations, 1957, in suspension case involving matrimonial dispute.
The Jharkhand High Court has dismissed the appeal filed by Gajendra Prasad, an Assistant Operator (Electrical) at Damodar Valley Corporation (DVC), challenging the treatment of his suspension period as "non-duty" and the minor penalty imposed on him. The Division Bench, comprising Justices Rongon Mukhopadhyay and Deepak Roshan, upheld the decision of the disciplinary authority and the learned Single Judge, emphasizing the competent authority's discretion under Regulation 100 of the DVC Service Regulations, 1957.
The appellant, Gajendra Prasad, was suspended from service on October 25, 2002, due to a pending criminal case arising from matrimonial disputes. Despite the criminal case concluding in a compromise, the disciplinary authority decided on June 11, 2018, that the entire suspension period from October 25, 2002, to May 1, 2007, would be treated as "non-duty." This decision meant that Prasad would only receive subsistence allowance rather than full pay for the duration of his suspension.
Prasad's appeal contended that his exoneration in the criminal case entitled him to full pay during the suspension period. However, the court found that he was not fully exonerated of the departmental charges, which included non-disclosure of marriage, demand for dowry, desertion of his wife, and leaving headquarters during suspension without permission. The disciplinary authority had imposed a minor penalty of withholding one increment for a year without cumulative effect, which the court deemed not harsh.
During the proceedings, the court examined Regulation 100, which allows the competent authority to treat the suspension period as non-duty unless the employee is fully exonerated or the suspension is deemed wholly unjustified. The court noted that Prasad was found guilty of certain charges, and the competent authority had not deemed the suspension unjustified.
Furthermore, the court addressed the delay in disciplinary proceedings, attributing it to Prasad's non-cooperation, which necessitated an ex-parte enquiry report. The court emphasized that the suspension was initially due to criminal proceedings, not misconduct related to duty discharge.
Prasad's appeal also sought consequential service benefits, including promotion and annual increments, which were not addressed by the court, directing him to pursue these matters with the appropriate authority.
In conclusion, the Jharkhand High Court affirmed the learned Single Judge's decision to uphold the competent authority's treatment of the suspension period as "non-duty," thereby dismissing Prasad's appeal.
Bottom line:-
Treatment of suspension period in service law - Employee not fully exonerated nor suspension held wholly unjustified - Competent authority is empowered under Regulation 100 of the D.V.C. Service Regulations, 1957 to treat the suspension period as "non-duty".
Statutory provision(s): Regulation 100 of D.V.C. Service Regulations, 1957, Regulation 95(B)(1) proviso (ii), Regulation 96, Regulation 105.
Gajendra Prasad v. Damodar Valley Corporation, (Jharkhand)(DB) : Law Finder Doc id # 2883253
