TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Tribunal's Order Overturned, Employee Entitled to Full Pay & Allowances</h1> <h3>PR. SASIDHARAN Versus COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE & CUSTOMS,</h3> PR. SASIDHARAN Versus COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE & CUSTOMS, - TMI Issues Involved:1. The effect of Annexure A7 order dated 7.10.2008.2. Whether the employee could be deemed to have been under suspension from 8.4.2005.3. The Tribunal's finding on the issue of subsistence allowance.Detailed Analysis:Issue 1: Effect of Annexure A7 Order Dated 7.10.2008The Annexure A7 order, issued by the Joint Commissioner of the Cochin Commissionerate of Central Excise and Customs, set aside the employee's dismissal from service, directed a further inquiry under the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, and deemed the employee to have been placed under suspension from 8.4.2005. The competent authority considered the employee's acquittal by a higher court and decided to nullify the dismissal order, thus necessitating a further inquiry into the allegations that led to his initial dismissal. This order is self-executing in setting aside the dismissal and legally valid in ordering a further inquiry.Issue 2: Deemed Suspension from 8.4.2005The Tribunal's decision to deem the employee under suspension from 8.4.2005 was challenged. The court clarified that Rule 10(4) of the CCA Rules applies only when a penalty of dismissal, removal, or compulsory retirement is set aside by a court of law, and a further inquiry is ordered. The competent authority's decision to deem the employee under suspension retroactively from 8.4.2005 was not legally sustainable. Instead, the suspension should be effective from 7.10.2008, the date of the order, and not retroactive. The employee is entitled to full pay and allowances from the date of acquittal (8.8.2007) until the suspension order (7.10.2008).Issue 3: Subsistence AllowanceThe Tribunal's decision on subsistence allowance was found to be inconsistent with the Apex Court's ruling in Union of India v. R.K. Chopra, which states that escalated pay scales during suspension do not affect subsistence allowance. The competent authority should reassess the subsistence allowance at the end of the suspension period, considering the final outcome of the disciplinary proceedings. The Tribunal's decision on this matter was remanded for reconsideration in light of the Apex Court's ruling.Conclusion:The court set aside the Tribunal's order to the extent indicated, remitting the matter for further consideration. The employee's deemed suspension from 8.4.2005 was invalid; instead, the suspension was effective from 7.10.2008. The issue of subsistence allowance was remanded to the Tribunal for reconsideration, and the employee was entitled to full pay and allowances from 8.8.2007 to 7.10.2008. The parties were directed to appear before the Tribunal on 14.05.2012 for further proceedings.
TaxTMI 