AIR 2013 SUPREME COURT 3329 ::2013 AIR SCW 4956 ::2013 LAB. I. C. 4086 ::(2013) 139 FacLR 304 ::2013 (16) SCC 615 ::2013 (10) Scale 89 ::(2014) 1 ServLJ 487 ::(2014) 1 JLJR 85 ::(2014) 1 Raj LW 538 ::(2014) 1 Pat LJR 316 ::2013 (4) SCT 465 ::(2014) 3 ServLR 429 ::(2013) 130 AllIndCas 138 (SC)

Supreme Court Of India

(From : Patna)

Hon'ble Judge(s): Anil R. Dave, Dipak Misra , JJ

Constitution of India , Art.311— @page-SC3330Subsistence allowance - Denial on ground that suspended employee had not stayed at headquarters despite a stipulation in order of suspension - Not proper in absence of rule requiring suspended employee to remain at headquarters. The presence at the headquarters was not a requirement under the Rule. There is no rule that provides that the suspended employee should remain at the headquarters to be entitled to get subsistence allowance. That apart, the respondent, suspended employee had clearly stated about his financial condition and his inability to remain at the headquarters. It is not the case of the functionaries of the State that he was asked to furnish a certificate and he did not furnish. The subsistence allowance was not paid on the singular ground that he had not stayed at the headquarters despite a stipulation in the order of suspension. The respondent had submitted number of representations with regard to his penurious condition to stay at the headquarters and participate in the disciplinary proceedings. There is nothing in the Rules which would require for a suspended employee to remain at the headquarters. Thus, in the present case, even if the doctrine prejudice is applied, it is quite obvious that the respondent herein was absolutely handicapped to participate in the departmental proceedings and hence....