State Government Of M.P. & Ors vs Shankarlal

2. A departmental proceeding was initiated against him. He was placed under suspension by an order dated 4.9.1982. In the said order of suspension, it was clearly stipulated that subsistence allowance would be paid to him in terms of Rule 53 of the Fundamental Rules. On or about 19.6.1982, he was transferred from Katni to Barhi. He did not join at Barhi after the order of suspension was passed. It appears that a communication was issued to him on 5.10.1983 asking him to collect the subsistence allowance stating :

3. For a few days, namely, on 2.11.1983, 22.11.1983, 9.12.1983 and 20.1.1984, he took part in the departmental proceedings. On those days, some witnesses on behalf of the department were examined and cross- examined. But on 24.2.1984, he absented himself. A telegram was sent to him asking him to submit his list of witnesses and defence on 12.3.1984. He did not comply therewith. He also did not take part in the departmental proceedings on 29.3.1984. Another chance was given to him to appear before the enquiry officer on 19.4.1984 but even on the said date he was not present. He although was present on 5.5.1984, but did not take part in the hearing in the said proceeding stating that he had filed an appeal before this Court.

We may place on record that neither any number has been put in the said purported S.L.P. nor the same was registered, although according to the respondent, who had appeared in person before us, the said SLP was still pending.

4. On subsequent dates, he absented himself and, thus, did not take part in the enquiry proceedings. Out of 18 dates fixed for hearing, the respondent was present only on five days. In the aforementioned situation, an ex parte departmental proceeding was held wherein he was found guilty of the charges levelled against him. We may also place on record that he collected his subsistence allowance for the period 4.9.1982 to 20.9.1982 in January 1985 and thereafter payment till September 1984 was made in February 1987. His services, however, were terminated by an order dated 28.5.1985. The amount of subsistence allowance of the respondent was raised from 50% to 75% on 14.6.1985.

5. He preferred an appeal thereagainst which was dismissed by the Chief Engineer being the appellate authority on 15.11.1999.

19. We, therefore, are of the opinion that in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, interest of justice shall be subserved if the impugned judgment is set aside and the matter is remitted to the High Court for consideration thereof afresh. The High Court may look into the records of the case so as to enable it to arrive at a decision whether non-payment of subsistence allowance caused any prejudice to the respondent in the event it intends to interfere with the finding of fact arrived at by the Tribunal that the respondent himself was responsible therefor.

20. However, we direct that in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, the State should pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) to the respondent by way of litigation costs. The State shall also place before the High Court all relevant records. We would request the High Court to consider the desirability of disposing of the matter expeditiously.

21. The appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent and with the aforesaid directions and observations.