.jpg)
According to the Bombay High Court, an employee who was thought to be suspended owing to criminal allegations is not entitled to back pay despite being cleared of all charges, as a deemed suspension is a mandatory action that cannot be ruled to be unjustified.
In the instant case titled Gopal S/o Sitaram Bairisal v. Union of India, the issue raised before the Bombay High Court was:
Whether the petitioner can be granted back wages and allowances for the period of his suspension?
With regard to the issue, the court noted that pursuant to Rule 54-B of the Fundamental Rules, the issue of whether the suspension was justified or not must be resolved before it can be decided whether an employee is entitled to back pay and allowances and whether the period of suspension is to be treated as time spent on duty.
According to Rule 10(2) of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules 1965, a presumed suspension order was issued in the current case (CCS CCA Rules). Since it is a presumed suspension, the disciplinary authorities lacked discretion in this situation. Such a legal suspension cannot be deemed to be unreasonable.
The petitioner never asked for a review or repeal of the suspension order, so the court wasn't inclined to believe his claim that he sincerely wished to work. He did not put any effort into earning his daily stipend; he was pleased with that. The petitioner cannot be blamed for the trial's delay, the court noted, and the disciplinary body cannot be blamed either.
The court categorically stated that:
“The petitioner was deemed to have been placed under suspension on the expiry of 48 hours since the time he was taken into custody. For a deemed suspension to take effect, even no immediate order in writing is necessary. Such suspension takes effect by operation of law. There can, therefore, be no dispute that in placing the petitioner under suspension, his Disciplinary Authority did not have to exercise discretion in any measure. The suspension of the petitioner, brought about by operation of law, had the effect infusing life into a law and the same can hardly be impeached as unjustified. We, therefore, see no reason to hold that the order of suspension, at the inception, was unjustified on facts and in the circumstances.”
Hence, the court held that whether the employee is facing criminal charges for actions while performing his official duties or not is irrelevant. The CCS CCA Rules would consider the employee to be suspended after being detained for longer than 48 hours.