Rule 54 and Its Implications
Rule 54 of the Financial Handbook Volume-II (Part II to IV) is pivotal in this ruling. It provides that a government employee dismissed from service but subsequently exonerated of all charges is entitled to full pay for the period of dismissal upon reinstatement. Additionally, this period is treated as time spent on duty. This rule ensures that employees wrongfully dismissed do not suffer financial losses due to the period they were out of service.
'No Work-No Pay' Principle Not Applicable
Justice Salil Kumar Rai, who presided over the case, clarified that the 'no work-no pay' principle does not apply to Uttar Pradesh government employees who are reinstated after full exoneration. This ruling signifies that such employees should not be denied their pay and allowances for the period they were not in service if their dismissal, removal, or compulsory retirement is overturned on appeal or review. The court emphasized that the only exception to this entitlement is if the employee was gainfully employed during the period of dismissal and earned more or equivalent to their entitled salary.
Case Background
The petitioner, a follower in the Uttar Pradesh Police, was subject to disciplinary proceedings under Rule 14 of the Uttar Pradesh Police Officers of the Subordinate Ranks (Punishment and Appeal) Rules 1991. The charges included unauthorized leave and actions detrimental to the reputation of the police force. Following an inquiry, the petitioner was found guilty and subsequently dismissed from service. The petitioner appealed the dismissal, and the appellate authority exonerated him of all charges, resulting in his reinstatement.
Subsequent Show Cause Notice
Despite reinstatement, the petitioner received a show cause notice under Rule 73 of the Financial Handbook Volume-II (Part II to IV) questioning why his service period from January 9, 2020, to September 29, 2020, should not be regularized without salary on the principle of 'no work-no pay'. The Superintendent of Police, District Deoria, decided that the petitioner would not be paid for this period, alleging gross negligence of duty.
Court's Observations and Verdict
The High Court observed that the petitioner was never suspended and was fully exonerated by the appellate authority. Therefore, the conduct during the disciplinary proceedings could not be used to justify the denial of salary. Rule 73 was found inapplicable as the petitioner was dismissed, not absent without leave. The court noted that the respondents did not demonstrate any delay in inquiry or appellate proceedings due to the petitioner or prove his gainful employment during the period out of service.
Ultimately, the court ruled in favor of the petitioner, ordering that the period out of service should be treated as time served on duty, entitling him to wages for that period. The petitioner was also awarded Rs. 25,000 as litigation costs.
Significance of the Ruling
This ruling underscores the protection of employee rights, particularly for government employees wrongfully dismissed. By enforcing Rule 54, the court ensures that employees exonerated of charges do not face undue financial hardship. It also establishes that the 'no work-no pay' principle cannot be arbitrarily applied to such cases, promoting fairness and justice within employment practices.
Conclusion
The Allahabad High Court's decision marks a significant precedent in employment law, affirming the rights of reinstated employees to full pay after exoneration. This decision reinforces the principles of fairness and justice, ensuring that employees wrongfully dismissed are adequately compensated for the period they were out of service. The ruling also highlights the importance of proper application and interpretation of employment rules to protect the rights of workers.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.