Suspended employee denied subsistence allowance and medical adjournments; ex parte inquiry quashed after acquittal in linked raid case

Non-payment of subsistence allowance during suspension, coupled with refusal of medically supported adjournments, deprived the delinquent employee of a reasonable opportunity to defend and rendered the ex parte disciplinary inquiry violative of natural justice; the inquiry findings were therefore vitiated and the punishment could not stand. Further, where the departmental action and criminal prosecution arose from the same raid and alleged recovery, and the very witnesses were common, the criminal court's acquittal on a categorical finding that no search or recovery was proved made it unjust, unfair, and oppressive to sustain contrary departmental findings; the usual distinction in standard of proof was held inapplicable. The SC allowed the appeal, set aside the HC Division Bench judgment, and restored the Single Judge's order granting relief.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Simultaneous continuation of departmental proceedings and criminal case based on the same set of facts.
2. Non-payment of Subsistence Allowance during suspension.
3. Violation of principles of natural justice in conducting ex-parte departmental proceedings.
4. Impact of acquittal in a criminal case on departmental proceedings based on identical facts.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Simultaneous continuation of departmental proceedings and criminal case based on the same set of facts:
The primary issue was whether departmental proceedings and a criminal case based on the same set of facts can be continued simultaneously. The court noted that this question arises frequently in service matters. The appellant, a Security Officer, was subjected to both proceedings following a raid that recovered gold from his residence. The court reviewed various precedents, establishing that while there is no legal bar to simultaneous proceedings, it is often advisable to stay departmental proceedings if the criminal case involves grave charges and complicated questions of law and fact. The court emphasized that departmental and criminal proceedings operate in distinct jurisdictions, with different standards of proof.

2. Non-payment of Subsistence Allowance during suspension:
The appellant argued that he was not paid Subsistence Allowance during his suspension, which hindered his ability to attend the departmental proceedings. The court acknowledged that non-payment of Subsistence Allowance is inhumane and violates the right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution. The court cited previous judgments, stating that non-payment could vitiate the entire disciplinary process. It was undisputed that the appellant did not receive Subsistence Allowance, which led to financial difficulties preventing him from attending the proceedings.

3. Violation of principles of natural justice in conducting ex-parte departmental proceedings:
The court found that the departmental proceedings were conducted ex-parte despite the appellant's illness and financial difficulties. The appellant had requested adjournments supported by medical certificates, which were denied. The court held that this amounted to a violation of natural justice as the appellant was not afforded a fair opportunity to defend himself. The court emphasized that the principles of natural justice are fundamental in disciplinary proceedings.

4. Impact of acquittal in a criminal case on departmental proceedings based on identical facts:
The appellant was acquitted in the criminal case with categorical findings that the prosecution failed to establish its case. The court noted that the same witnesses and evidence were used in both the criminal and departmental proceedings. Given the acquittal, the court held that it would be unjust and oppressive to uphold the findings of the ex-parte departmental proceedings. The court stated that the distinction between departmental and criminal proceedings does not apply when both are based on identical facts and evidence.

Conclusion:
The appeal was allowed, setting aside the Division Bench's judgment and upholding the Single Judge's decision to allow the writ petition. The court directed the appellant's reinstatement as Security Officer with full arrears of salary and allowances from the date of suspension. The court also awarded costs of Rs.15,000 to the appellant. The court declined to permit fresh disciplinary proceedings given the prolonged agony faced by the appellant since 1985 and his acquittal in 1987.

---