http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

PETITIONER: SMT. K. PONNAMMA

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: THE STATE OF KERALA & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       17/03/1997

BENCH: K. RAMASWAMY, G.T. NANAVATI

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                          O R D E R      This special  leave petition has been filed against the judgment of  the Kerala High Court, made on November 7, 1996 in writ Appeal No.850/1996.      Admittedly, the petitioner and her husband were charged for an offence under Section 302 and also Section 201 I.P.C. etc. While  the husband of the petitioner was convicted, she was acquitted  of the  offences under  Sections 301 and also 201, getting her the benefit of doubt. Consequently, she was reinstated into  service but   back wages were denied, after conducting the  enquiry under  Kerala Service Rules. Rule 57 of the Rules provides that:      "An  Officer  who  is  detained  in      custody,  whether   on  a  criminal      charge or  otherwise, for  a period      exceeding fortyeight  hours, or  is      undergoing imprisonment,  shall  be      deemed to  be under suspension with      effect    from    the    date    of      commencement of  the  detention  or      imprisonment, as  the case  may be,      and shall  not be  allowed to  draw      any pay  and allowances during such      period of suspension other than any      subsistence  allowance   and  other      allowances that  may be  granted in      accordance with  Rule 55,  until he      is reinstated in service."      Rule 56 of the Rules provides thus:      "(1) When  an officer  who has been      dismissed,  removed  or  compulsory      retired including  an  officer  who      has been  compulsory retired  under      rule 60A, is reinstated a result of      appeal or review or would have been      so   reinstated,    but   for   his      retirement on  superannuation while      under  suspension   or   not,   the      authority   competent    to   order      reinstatement  shall  consider  and

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2  

    make a specific order:      (a)   regarding    the   pay    and      allowances  to   be  paid   to  the      officer  for   the  period  of  his      absence  from  duty  including  the      period of  suspension preceding his      dismissal, removal,  or  compulsory      retirement, as the case may be,      (b) whether  or not the said period      shall be  treated as a period spent      on duty."      A reading  thereof would clearly indicate that where an officer has  been kept  under suspension,  on account of the pendency of the charges/detention for 48 hours and continued to remain under suspension pending the trial of the criminal charge, statutorily  he/she is  disabled    to  perform  the duties of  the post.  On reinstatement  under Rule  56,  the competent authority  shall have  a duty to consider whether, on reinstatement, suspended officer would be untitled to the payment of  full pay  etc. for the period of his suspension. The mandate  of Rule  56 is   the competent authority should consider the  case in accordance with the rules and pall the order. The  nature of  the order  is discretionary depending upon the  facts in  the case.  It is seen that on account of the involvement  of the  petitioner in  a criminal charge by statutory operation,  she was  under suspension till she was acquitted.  On   acquittal,  the  departmental  enquiry  was conducted as  to the  nature of  the order  to be made under Rule 56.  Accordingly, the  authority,  in  its  discretion, found that  the payment  of the  salary during the period of suspension except  suspension allowance  already paid, could not be granted. It being in accordance with the Rules, we do not think  that the  High  Court  has  committed  any  error warranting interference.      The special leave petition is dismissed.