Case Background
The petitioner was serving as Principal of Women’s College, Samastipur, under Lalit Narayan Mithila University, Darbhanga.
She wrote a letter to the Vice Chancellor regarding alleged overwriting made above her signatures in a register at Samastipur College, where she had been posted last by order dated 31.07.2021. Before that, on 13.07.2021, she had gone to Samastipur College where an altercation allegedly took place.
On 27.07.2021, the university issued a show cause notice to her. She was asked why disciplinary action should not be taken against her on the allegation that she had shown indecent behaviour with the officer-in-charge and other staff members of Samastipur College.
The petitioner submitted her reply to this show cause notice.
Thereafter, on 31.07.2021, the Vice Chancellor of Lalit Narayan Mithila University passed an order suspending the petitioner from the post of Principal, Women’s College, Samastipur. The order stated that it was being passed by exercising powers under Section 10(18) of the Bihar State Universities Act, 1976 on the basis of prima facie evidence for alleged embezzlement of fund, gross misconduct, dereliction of duty and tampering with records.
Under the suspension order, her headquarters during suspension were fixed at J.M.D.P.L. Mahila College, Madhubani and another teacher, Dr. Sunita Sinha, Professor of English, Women’s College, Samastipur, was authorised to work as Professor-in-charge, Women’s College, Samastipur.
Challenging this action, the petitioner filed Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 15008 of 2021 before the Patna High Court. She sought quashing of the suspension notification dated 30.07.2021 and a direction for her reinstatement with all consequential benefits.
What the Court Examined and Decided
The matter came before Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjeev Prakash Sharma. The Court heard learned senior counsel for the petitioner and counsel for the university.
On behalf of the petitioner, it was argued that the suspension order had been passed contrary to the University Statutes. Learned senior counsel drew the Court’s attention particularly to Articles 10 and 15 of the relevant Statute.
Article 10 of the Statute lays down principles for placing a university servant under suspension. It covers two main situations. One is where the employee is facing criminal prosecution. The second is where the employee is being proceeded against departmentally for gross misconduct, bribery, corruption or dereliction of duty. Article 10 also mentions circumstances where an employee may be made to go on leave or, on refusal, may be suspended to prevent tampering with evidence. Importantly, the proviso to Article 10(3) says that the period of suspension shall not exceed one year from the date of suspension except in circumstances beyond the control of the University.
Article 15 of the Statute lists penalties that can be imposed on members of the university service. These range from censure and withholding of increments or promotion to recovery of losses, suspension, reduction to a lower post, removal and dismissal.
Article 18 provides the procedure for discharging a temporary university servant. It explains how temporary service can be terminated in different situations, such as termination under the terms of appointment, termination without notice for appointments continuing until further orders, and cases where only an explanation is required before early termination. In other cases, it requires full departmental proceedings before temporary services can be terminated.
The petitioner’s stand was that the order dated 30.07.2021 had not followed the statutory scheme. She argued that the suspension under Article 15 of the Statute is a penalty that can be imposed only after holding a regular departmental inquiry, not at the initial stage. She also pointed out that although she had been suspended on 31.07.2021, no subsistence allowance had been paid to her and no departmental enquiry had even been initiated. No charge sheet had been served on her.
On this basis, the petitioner submitted that the suspension order deserved to be quashed.
On the other side, counsel for the university argued that the suspension order was issued after giving the petitioner an opportunity to reply to the show cause notice. He submitted that an inquiry was made by a committee of the university and only after receiving the petitioner’s reply was the suspension order issued. Therefore, according to the university, the suspension should be treated as a penalty under Article 15(4) of the Statute, and an appeal would lie against such an order.
The Court carefully considered these submissions and examined the statutory provisions reproduced in the judgment.
The Court first analysed Article 10. It noted that this provision speaks of two stages where suspension orders can be passed. First, under Article 10(1), suspension can be ordered in criminal cases. Second, under Article 10(2), suspension can be ordered where a university servant is being proceeded against departmentally.
Under Article 10(2), two situations are mentioned. In the first, where charges of gross misconduct, bribery, corruption or dereliction of duty are levelled, a suspension order can be issued on the basis of prima facie evidence available at the initiation of the proceedings. In the second, after the departmental enquiry has been concluded, if the university servant is found guilty of gross misconduct or dereliction of duty or bribery or corruption which would entail dismissal or removal from service, he can be placed under suspension.
A separate circumstance under Article 10(3) covers cases where there is reason to believe that the university servant, if allowed to continue in service, might tamper with evidence. In such cases, the employee may be required to proceed on leave and, if he refuses, may be suspended. The proviso restricts the suspension period to one year from the date of suspension, except in circumstances beyond the University’s control.
After examining these provisions, the Court found that the suspension order in this case was essentially an order passed under Article 10(2) at the initial stage, where prima facie evidence was stated to be available against the petitioner. It was not a final penalty imposed after a completed departmental enquiry.
Having reached this conclusion, the Court noted that once such a suspension is ordered at the initial stage, an enquiry is required to be initiated and completed within a reasonable time. According to the Statute, the period of suspension can be only for one year, except in special circumstances. Here, almost 11 months had passed since the suspension order, yet no departmental proceedings had been initiated because no charge sheet had been issued.
The Court also recorded that no subsistence allowance had been paid to the petitioner during this long period of suspension. Though the university claimed that an inquiry had been conducted through a committee, no document showing any inquiry proceedings was produced before the Court.
The Court then referred to a series of Supreme Court judgments on the importance of paying subsistence allowance and conducting enquiries promptly during suspension.
In Jagdamba Prasad Shukla v. State of U.P. & Others, reported in 2000(7) SCC 90, the Supreme Court held that omission to pay subsistence allowance amounts to denial of reasonable opportunity, which vitiates the departmental enquiry.
In Capt. M. Paul Anthony v. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd. & Anr., reported in (1999) 3 SCC 679, the Supreme Court discussed at length the harmful impact of suspending an employee without proper payment of subsistence allowance. It observed that non-payment of subsistence allowance is an inhuman act with an unpropitious effect on the life of an employee. The Court quoted earlier observations in O.P. Gupta v. Union of India & Ors. that a suspended employee remains in service but is not allowed to work and is paid only a reduced amount to sustain himself. The expression “subsistence allowance” itself has a penal significance, meaning the minimum means to support life. If even that amount is not paid, it defeats the very object of paying a reduced salary during suspension and can be likened to “slow-poisoning” because the employee may gradually starve.
The Patna High Court also referred to State of Punjab & Ors. v. K.K. Sharma, reported in (2002) 9 SCC 474. In that case, the Supreme Court held that non-payment of subsistence allowance amounts to denial of reasonable opportunity to the delinquent employee to defend himself in the enquiry, and the enquiry proceedings are therefore vitiated.
Further, the Court relied on Anwarul Nisha Khatoon v. State of Bihar & Ors., reported in (2002) 6 SCC 703. The Supreme Court there held that subsistence allowance cannot be denied for the suspension period on the ground that the suspended employee had not marked his attendance.
Applying these principles, the Patna High Court held that in the present case the petitioner had been kept under suspension for a long period without any departmental enquiry being initiated and without any charge sheet being issued. She had also not been paid subsistence allowance.
The Court observed that, in these circumstances, the suspension was effectively being treated as a penalty under Article 15, without conducting the required enquiry. That could not be permitted.
Consequently, the Court held that the petitioner could not be allowed to continue under suspension. The order of suspension, being penal in nature, was directed to be revoked.
At the same time, the Court made it clear that this revocation would not prevent the university from continuing or initiating its intended departmental proceedings against the petitioner. She would be at liberty to defend herself in such proceedings.
The Court further held that the petitioner would be free to claim subsistence allowance. It also directed that the other part of her salary shall be paid to her subject to the decision of the departmental inquiry, if and when conducted.
Finally, the Court ordered that the petitioner be reinstated and continued on the post she was holding. With these directions, the writ petition was allowed.
Why This Judgment Matters
This judgment is important for teachers, principals and other employees working under universities in Bihar and elsewhere.
The Patna High Court has made it clear that a university cannot suspend an employee and then leave her in that state for months without starting an enquiry or paying subsistence allowance. Suspension is not meant to be a hidden punishment.
The Court has also underlined that the Statute itself restricts how long a suspension can continue and requires reasons to be recorded. If an employee is kept under suspension without charge sheet, without subsistence allowance and without active enquiry, the Court can step in and protect the employee.
For employees who face similar situations, this judgment shows that they can challenge such prolonged and unsupported suspension orders. For universities and government bodies, it is a warning that they must follow their own rules and constitutional principles of fairness when taking disciplinary action.
Legal Issues and Answers
- Issue: Whether the university could continue the petitioner’s suspension for nearly 11 months without issuing a charge sheet, initiating departmental enquiry or paying subsistence allowance.
Answer: No. The Court held that such prolonged suspension without enquiry and without subsistence allowance was illegal and amounted to treating suspension as a penalty without due process. The suspension order had to be revoked. - Issue: Whether revoking the suspension would stop the university from taking disciplinary action against the petitioner.
Answer: No. The Court expressly clarified that revocation of suspension would not prevent the university from continuing or starting departmental proceedings in accordance with law, and the petitioner could defend herself there. - Issue: What monetary relief was the petitioner entitled to after revocation of suspension.
Answer: The Court held that the petitioner would be free to claim subsistence allowance for the suspension period, and that the other part of her salary would be paid subject to the outcome of the departmental enquiry.
Cases Cited by the Court
- Jagdamba Prasad Shukla v. State of U.P. & Others, 2000(7) SCC 90.
- Capt. M. Paul Anthony v. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd. & Anr., (1999) 3 SCC 679.
- O.P. Gupta v. Union of India & Ors., (1987) 4 SCC 328 (quoted in Capt. M. Paul Anthony).
- State of Punjab & Ors. v. K.K. Sharma, (2002) 9 SCC 474.
- Anwarul Nisha Khatoon v. State of Bihar & Ors., (2002) 6 SCC 703.
Case Details
Case Number: Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 15008 of 2021
Case Title: Dr. Meena Prasad v. The Lalit Narayan Mithila University, Darbhanga & Ors.
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjeev Prakash Sharma
Date of Judgment: 17-05-2022
Citation: 2022 (3) PLJR 72
Advocates:
- For the petitioner: Mr. Y.V. Giri, Senior Advocate; Mr. Sumit Kumar Jha, Advocate.
- For the respondents: Mr. Md. Nadim Seraj, Advocate.
Nature of the Case: Writ petition (civil) challenging suspension order and seeking reinstatement and consequential benefits.
Link to Full Judgment:https://patnahighcourt.gov.in/viewjudgment/MTUjMTUwMDgjMjAyMSMxI04=-zbR2O5OBtPs=
If you found this explanation helpful and wish to stay informed about how legal developments may affect your rights in Bihar, you may consider following Samvida Law Associates for more updates.
