Judicial Interpretation of Rule 97 of the Bihar Service Code

Judicial Interpretation of Rule 97 of the Bihar Service Code: Principles of Reinstatement, Pay, and Natural Justice

Introduction

The Bihar Service Code, 1952, serves as a comprehensive regulatory framework governing the conditions of service for government servants in the State of Bihar. Among its various provisions, Rule 97 holds a position of critical importance as it delineates the procedure and principles for determining the pay, allowances, and nature of the intervening period when a government servant, who has been dismissed, removed, or suspended, is subsequently reinstated. The exercise of power under this rule is not merely an administrative formality but a quasi-judicial function that directly impacts the financial and service-related rights of an employee. Consequently, the interpretation and application of Rule 97 have been the subject of extensive judicial scrutiny, primarily by the High Court of Judicature at Patna. This article provides a scholarly analysis of the jurisprudence surrounding Rule 97, focusing on the statutory mandate, the non-negotiable requirement of adhering to the principles of natural justice, and the nuanced interpretations applied by the courts in varying factual scenarios.

The Statutory Framework of Rule 97

Rule 97 of the Bihar Service Code provides a structured mechanism for the competent authority to decide upon the consequences of reinstatement. While the full text is extensive, its core components, as distilled from various judicial pronouncements, can be understood through its sub-rules. The rule was quoted in cases such as Prasenjit Ghosh v. The State Of Jharkhand (2004 SCC ONLINE JHAR 97) and Md. Muslim Khan v. State Of Jharkhand & Ors. (2008 SCC ONLINE JHAR 1344).

The operative part of Rule 97 can be summarized as follows:

97. (1) When a Government servant who has been dismissed, removed or suspended, is reinstated, the authority competent to order the reinstatement shall consider and make a specific order—
(a) regarding the pay and allowances to be paid to the Government servant for the period of his absence from duty; and
(b) whether or not the said period shall be treated as a period spent on duty.
(2) Where the authority mentioned in sub-rule (1), is of opinion that the Government servant has been fully exonerated, or in the case of suspension, that it was wholly unjustified, the Government servant shall be given full pay and allowance to which he would have been entitled had he not been dismissed, removed or suspended, as the case may be.
(3) In other cases, the Government servant shall be given such proportion of such pay and allowances as the competent authority may prescribe.

Sub-rules (4) and (5) further elaborate that in a case falling under sub-rule (3), the period of absence shall not be treated as a period spent on duty unless the competent authority specifically directs so, and any allowance paid under this sub-rule shall not be less than the subsistence allowance already paid. This statutory architecture clearly bifurcates scenarios: one of complete exoneration leading to mandatory full benefits (Rule 97(2)), and another involving a discretionary, yet reasoned, determination by the authority (Rule 97(3)). The judiciary has consistently held that this discretion is not absolute and must be exercised within the confines of law and fairness.

The Cornerstone of Natural Justice: The Show-Cause Notice

The most significant contribution of the judiciary to the jurisprudence of Rule 97 is the establishment of the mandatory requirement of a show-cause notice before passing an adverse order under sub-rule (3). The decision to award less than full pay and allowances for the period of suspension carries significant civil consequences for the employee, affecting not only their immediate finances but also their terminal benefits like pension and gratuity (Baidyanath Prasad Srivastava v. The State Of Bihar, 1998 SCC ONLINE PAT 733).

The foundational precedent for this principle was laid down by the Patna High Court in Shri Mahabir Prasad v. The State Of Bihar And Others (1975 SCC ONLINE PAT 45). In this landmark judgment, the Court held that Rule 97 of the Bihar Service Code is in pari materia with Fundamental Rule 54. It ruled unequivocally that an order restricting an employee's pay to subsistence allowance under Rule 97(3) and (5) is invalid if the employee was not given a reasonable opportunity to show cause against the proposed action. The Court emphasized that the authority has a duty to act in accordance with the "basic concept of justice and fair play."

This principle has been consistently and rigorously reaffirmed in a long line of subsequent decisions. In Ram Chandra Prasad v. State Of Jharkhand & Ors (Jharkhand High Court, 2013), the court reiterated this stance, citing Mahabir Prasad and quashing an order passed under Rule 97 for want of an opportunity to show cause. Similarly, in Satyendra Kumar Singh v. The State Of Bihar (Patna High Court, 2015), the court described the law as "settled," quashing the punitive part of an order withholding salary because the procedure under Rule 97(3) was not followed. The obligation is statutory, and its non-consideration renders the resultant order a nullity (RAM SHARAN PRASAD v. THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS, Patna High Court, 2008). This judicial insistence aligns with the broader principles of natural justice that demand a fair hearing before any quasi-judicial authority passes an order with adverse consequences (Dahyalal Bapulal Raval And Ors. v. Patan Municipality, Patan, Gujarat High Court, 1966).

Judicial Interpretation of Key Scenarios

The application of Rule 97 is not monolithic and depends heavily on the outcome of the disciplinary or criminal proceedings that led to the suspension. The courts have provided crucial interpretations for distinct scenarios.

Full Exoneration v. Not Wholly Unjustified Suspension

A key distinction lies between sub-rules (2) and (3). Sub-rule (2) applies where the employee is "fully exonerated" or the suspension was "wholly unjustified." In such cases, the grant of full pay and allowances is mandatory. However, the term "fully exonerated" is not synonymous with mere acquittal in a criminal case or the non-establishment of charges in a departmental proceeding. The competent authority must still apply its mind. In Md. Muslim Khan v. State Of Jharkhand & Ors. (2008), though the charges were not established, the authority resolved that the petitioner would receive nothing more than subsistence allowance, an action permissible under Rule 97(3) if the authority concludes that the suspension, while not leading to a finding of guilt, was not "wholly unjustified." This implies that even if charges are not proven, circumstances leading to the suspension might justify a less-than-full payment, provided the decision is reasoned and follows due process.

Effect of Dropped or Withdrawn Proceedings

A significant interpretative challenge arises when departmental proceedings are not concluded but are instead withdrawn or dropped, often due to the employee's superannuation. The Patna High Court addressed this directly in Kailash Singh v. State Of Bihar And Others (2000 SCC ONLINE PAT 688). The Court held that Rule 97(3) is applicable only in cases where the proceeding has "culminated into a final order, which may not be necessarily an order for dismissal, removal or Suspension." Where a proceeding is simply withdrawn without any finding of guilt, an adverse order under Rule 97(3) to adjust the suspension period against leave is not legally sustainable. This judgment prevents the administration from penalizing an employee indirectly when it has failed to conclude the inquiry and establish misconduct.

Post-Superannuation Application of Rule 97

The question of whether Rule 97 can be invoked after an employee has retired from service was addressed in Anant Pandey v. Parshidh Narayan Yadav (Jharkhand High Court, 2003). The Court held that the State Government is competent to deny salary for the suspension period on valid grounds even after superannuation, but only after giving the employee an opportunity of hearing. This clarifies that retirement does not extinguish the authority's power under Rule 97, but the procedural safeguard of natural justice remains paramount. The Court noted that a decision given in ignorance of a statute or a rule having the force of a statute is *per incuriam*, reinforcing the binding nature of Rule 97.

Procedural Integrity and the Scope of Judicial Review

The judicial approach to Rule 97 is consistent with its broader stance on disciplinary matters. As seen in cases like Abhay Kumar v. The State of Bihar (Patna High Court, 2020) and Rajesh Ranjan Poddar v. The State Of Bihar and Ors (Patna High Court, 2020), courts demand strict adherence to the procedures laid down in the Bihar Government Servants (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 2005. The application of Rule 97 is the final, consequential step of this process, and it must be conducted with the same procedural rigor.

The scope of judicial review over an order passed under Rule 97 is, however, not appellate in nature. As articulated in Nageshwar Sharma v. The State of Bihar and Ors (Patna High Court, 2023), a writ court will not re-appreciate the evidence or substitute its own conclusion for that of the disciplinary authority. Instead, its review is limited to ensuring that the decision-making process was fair, the principles of natural justice were followed, the findings are not perverse, and the decision was based on some evidence. An order under Rule 97 will be struck down if it is found to be arbitrary, unreasoned, or passed in violation of the mandatory procedural requirement of a show-cause notice.

Conclusion

The jurisprudence evolved by the High Courts of Patna and Jharkhand concerning Rule 97 of the Bihar Service Code has transformed its application from a matter of administrative discretion to a structured, quasi-judicial process governed by the principles of fairness and natural justice. The judiciary has unequivocally established that no government servant can be deprived of their pay and allowances for a period of suspension upon reinstatement without being given a reasonable opportunity to make a representation. The distinction between cases of full exoneration, concluded proceedings with minor punishment, and withdrawn proceedings has been carefully delineated, providing clear guidance to the competent authorities.

Ultimately, the judicial interpretation of Rule 97 reflects a profound commitment to procedural due process. It ensures that while the State retains the power to regulate the consequences of suspension, this power cannot be wielded arbitrarily. The "settled law" requiring a show-cause notice serves as a vital safeguard, balancing administrative control with the constitutional and statutory rights of government servants, thereby reinforcing the rule of law within the framework of public service.