Payment of subsistence allownace, pending enquiry into charges levelled against Officer
5 years ago
i have been asked to go on personal leave till inquiry completed and issued Charge sheet under Company Certified Standing Order . Though there is provision of subsistence allowance in CSO. The standing order is applicable to all kind of employee in the Organisation.
I little confused that if worker is Charge sheeted under suspended pending enquiry, and he is being paid subsistence allowance but executive who charged under same standing order and has been asked to go on leave till enquiry completed on verbal instruction, will not be eligible subsistence allwonace legally. will it not be discrimination.
I shall be grateful to you for providing me valuable advice & relevant case law in the matter.
A.Dear Client,
Please have a look
An Employee Is Entitled To Subsistence Allowance Pending Inquiry: SC [Read Judgment] BY: APOORVA MANDHANI16 FEB 2018 3:53 PM
The Supreme Court, on Thursday, ruled that an employee is entitled to subsistence allowance pending inquiry against him, opining that denial of financial resources would amount to depriving him of an opportunity to defend himself. The Bench comprising Justice M.B. Lokur and Justice Deepak Gupta observed, "An employee is entitled to subsistence allowance during an inquiry pending against him or her but if that employee is starved of finances by zero payment, it would be unreasonable to expect the employee to meaningfully participate in a departmental inquiry. Access to justice is a valuable right available to every person, even to a criminal, and indeed free legal representation is provided even to a criminal. In the case of a departmental inquiry, the delinquent is at best guilty of a misconduct but that is no ground to deny access to pension (wherever applicable) or subsistence allowance (wherever applicable)." The Court was hearing an Appeal filed by UCO Bank, which had initiated disciplinary proceedings against its employee, Mr Rajendra Shankar Shukla for dishonor of cheque. The bank had alleged that Mr Shukla had "failed to discharge his duties with utmost integrity and honesty". The Apex Court, however, agreed with the view taken by the High Court that in case a cheque issued by a bank employee is dishonored, action may be taken by the complainant under the provisions of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. Such an act would not amount to a misconduct within the purview of the UCO Bank Officer Employees' (Conduct) Regulations, 1976, it ruled. It further noted that Mr. Shukla was denied pension as well as subsistence allowance during the pendency of the inquiry, which prevented him from effectively participating in the disciplinary inquiry. The Court then rapped the bank for filing the Appeal and imposed costs of Rs. 1 lakh on it, observing, "However, we must observe that the learned Single Judge had held against the Bank and the Division Bench also held against the Bank. Notwithstanding this, the Bank preferred this appeal. The appeal was preferred despite at least two decisions delivered by this Court making the legal position clear. The Bank would have been well-advised to follow the law laid down by this Court rather than unnecessarily litigate against an employee who has superannuated. We have no doubt that Shukla must have spent a considerable amount in litigation. Accordingly, while dismissing the appeal, we impose costs of Rs. 1 lakh which will be paid to Shukla within 4 weeks from today towards his legal expenses."
Shanti Ranjan Behera
Advocate
Please have a look
An Employee Is Entitled To Subsistence Allowance Pending Inquiry: SC [Read Judgment] BY: APOORVA MANDHANI16 FEB 2018 3:53 PM
The Supreme Court, on Thursday, ruled that an employee is entitled to subsistence allowance pending inquiry against him, opining that denial of financial resources would amount to depriving him of an opportunity to defend himself. The Bench comprising Justice M.B. Lokur and Justice Deepak Gupta observed, "An employee is entitled to subsistence allowance during an inquiry pending against him or her but if that employee is starved of finances by zero payment, it would be unreasonable to expect the employee to meaningfully participate in a departmental inquiry. Access to justice is a valuable right available to every person, even to a criminal, and indeed free legal representation is provided even to a criminal. In the case of a departmental inquiry, the delinquent is at best guilty of a misconduct but that is no ground to deny access to pension (wherever applicable) or subsistence allowance (wherever applicable)." The Court was hearing an Appeal filed by UCO Bank, which had initiated disciplinary proceedings against its employee, Mr Rajendra Shankar Shukla for dishonor of cheque. The bank had alleged that Mr Shukla had "failed to discharge his duties with utmost integrity and honesty". The Apex Court, however, agreed with the view taken by the High Court that in case a cheque issued by a bank employee is dishonored, action may be taken by the complainant under the provisions of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. Such an act would not amount to a misconduct within the purview of the UCO Bank Officer Employees' (Conduct) Regulations, 1976, it ruled. It further noted that Mr. Shukla was denied pension as well as subsistence allowance during the pendency of the inquiry, which prevented him from effectively participating in the disciplinary inquiry. The Court then rapped the bank for filing the Appeal and imposed costs of Rs. 1 lakh on it, observing, "However, we must observe that the learned Single Judge had held against the Bank and the Division Bench also held against the Bank. Notwithstanding this, the Bank preferred this appeal. The appeal was preferred despite at least two decisions delivered by this Court making the legal position clear. The Bank would have been well-advised to follow the law laid down by this Court rather than unnecessarily litigate against an employee who has superannuated. We have no doubt that Shukla must have spent a considerable amount in litigation. Accordingly, while dismissing the appeal, we impose costs of Rs. 1 lakh which will be paid to Shukla within 4 weeks from today towards his legal expenses."
Shanti Ranjan Behera
Advocate
Helpful
Helpful
Share
A.Enquiries without subsistence allowance are illegal
Helpful
Helpful
Share
Read Related Answers
Is constructing a factory legal in local area
Dear Client,
Factories are mostly located outside the city to avoid pollution and commercial congestion. Various types of gases will be released into the atmosphere based on the factory and can harm t...
Experience Service letter after the termination due to unplanned absentism
Dear Client,
On cessation of employment either on resignation or otherwise, an employee deserves an experience certificate or relieving letter from his employer. An employer cannot withhold the relie...
EPF service overlap
Dear Client,
There is no overarching law that prohibits a person from doing multiple jobs. It is not illegal however both companies should not have the clause “cannot take up work full time in some ot...
Not getting my fnf amount
Dear Client,
On cessation of employment either on resignation or otherwise, except for proven misconduct, an employer cannot withhold the relieving letter and F & F Settlement dues of an employee wit...
I have Award passed by Labour court in Refrence IDA
Dear Client,
As per Sec.17(1) of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (1) an award (including an arbitration award) shall become enforceable on the expiry of thirty days from the date of its publication u...
Read Blogs on Industrial Laws
Industrial Laws Lawyers
Find Lawyers by Location
