HAREENDRANATH Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner while working as Senior Accountant in the District Treasury Office was suspended by the third respondent as per Ext. P - 1 order dated 2.4.1997. Ext P - 1 was challenged by the petitioner in O.P. No. 7670 of 1997 on various grounds. But this Court directed the second respondent to consider the representation filed by the petitioner against the order of suspension. Accordingly, the second respondent passed Ext. P - 3 order by which Ext. P - 1 order was held to be proper and valid. It was admitted that the fourth respondent has no authority to suspend the petitioner. But the action of the fourth respondent in passing Ext. P - 1 order was ratified by the first respondent as per Ext. P - 4 dated 28.4.1997. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the second respondent alone is competent to suspend the petitioner. The fourth respondent has absolutely no right or jurisdiction over the petitioner either to take disciplinary action or to suspend him. Therefore, the question to be considered is whether by passing Ext. P - 4 order of ratification Ext. P1 order can be validated. The leaned counsel submitted on the wording of R.10 of the Kerala Civil Services (CC & A.) Rules that only the following authorities are empowered to suspend an employee: (1) the Appointing Authority or (2) any authority to which it is subordinate; or (3) any other authority empowered by the Government in that behalf. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the fourth respondent was not fit in any of these categories. There is no case that the Government have empowered the fourth respondent to suspend the petitioner. Prima facie the argument of the petitioner is quite attractive.

(2.) The learned Government Pleader invited my attention to R.10(2) wherein it was specifically provided that where the order of suspension is made by an authority lower than the appointing authority, such authority shall forthwith report to the Appointing Authority, the circumstances in which the order was made. The fourth respondent acted in accordance with the above provisions and the first respondent as per Ext. P - 4 order ratified the action of the fourth respondent. Therefore, the other question to be considered is what is the effect of the order of ratification. The settled position with regard to the ratification is that ratification is in law equivalent to previous authority (please see T.R. Bhavani Shankar Joshi v. Gordhandas Jamnadas ( AIR 1943 PC 66 )). It has also been held that the ratification relates back to the time of inception of the transaction and has a complete retroactive efficacy (Please see Surendra Nath Roy v. Kader Nath Bose ( AIR 1936 Cal. 87 ), Mt. Binda Kuer v. Lalita Prasad (AIR 1934 Pat 290) and C.G. Thorborg v. Union of India (AIR 1968 Delhi 292)). Applying these well known principles regarding the ratification it can be safely held that Ext. P - 4 completely satisfies the conditions stipulated in R.10 of the Kerala Civil Services (C.C. & A.) Rules. Therefore, I do not find any infirmity in Ext. P - 1 order of suspension.

(3.) There is yet another grievance for the petitioner in the sense that there is substantial reduction in the payment of subsistence allowance to the petitioner. In Para.14 of the Original Petition the petitioner has stated that he was receiving a substance allowance of Rs.2,953/- upto August, 1997. But it was reduced from September onwards and he is now paid only Rs.1,757/-. According to R.55, for the first year of suspension, subsistence allowance at an amount equal to the leave salary which the officer would have drawn had he been on leave on half - pay on the date of his suspension is to be paid to the suspended employee. In Ext. P - 6 the Government have ordered that there cannot be any reduction in subsistence allowance after the first year of suspension. There is no provision in the rules or any other orders to reduce the amount of subsistance allowance after the first year. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled to get the subsistance allowance in accordance with R.55 of Part - I KSR. Any reduction in the subsistance allowance due to the petitioner is illegal. Therefore, the respondents are directed to pay the subsistance allowance which the petitioner was getting till August, 1997. The arrears in this respect must be paid to the petitioner within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.