CENTRAL CIVIL SERVICES
(CLASSIFICATION, CONTROL & APPEAL) RULES, 1965
(7) Timely payment of subsistence allowance :-
In the case of Ghanshyam Das Srivastava Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (AIR 1973 SC 1183), the Supreme Court had observed that where a Government servant under suspension pleaded his inability to attend the inquiry on account of financial stringency caused by the non-payment of subsistence allowance to him the proceedings conducted against him exparte would be in violation of the provisions of Article 311 (2) of the Constitution as the person concerned did not receive a reasonable opportunity of defending himself in the disciplinary proceedings.
2. In the light of the judgment mentioned above, it may be impressed on all authorities concerned that they should make timely payment of subsistence allowance to Government servants who are placed under suspension so that they may not be put to financial difficulties. It may be noted that, by its very nature, subsistence allowance is meant for the subsistence of a suspended Government servant and his family during the period he is not allowed to perform any duty and thereby earn a salary. Keeping this in view, all concerned authorities should take prompt steps to ensure that after a Government servant is placed under suspension, he received subsistence allowance without delay.
3. The judgment of the Supreme Court referred to in para 1 above indicates that in that case, the disciplinary authority proceeded with the enquiry ex-parte notwithstanding the fact that the Government servant concerned had specifically pleaded his inability to attend the enqiury on account of financial difficulties caused by non-payment of subsistence allowance. The Court had held that holding the enquiry ex-parte under such circumstances, would be violative of Article 311 (2) of the Constitution on account of denial of reasonable opportunity of defence. This point may also be kept in view by all authorities concerned, before invoking the provisions of rule 14 (20) of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965.
[Cabinet sect.(Department of Personnel & Administrative Reforms) OM No. 11012/10/76-Estt.(A) dated 6th October, 1976].
As mentioned in the OM dated 6th October, 1976 referred to above, the Supreme Court have held that if a Government servant under suspension pleads his inability to attend the disciplinary proceedings on account of non-payment of subsistence allowance, the enquiry conducted against him, ex-parte, could be construed as denial of reasonable opportunity of defending himself. It may, therefore, once again be impressed upon all authorities concerned that after a Government servant is placed under suspension, prompt steps should be taken to ensure that immediate action is taken under FR 53, for payment of subsistence allowance and the Government servant concerned receives payment of subsistence allowance without delay and regularly subject to the fulfilment of the condition laid down in FR 53. In cases where recourse to ex-parte proceedings becomes necessary, if should be checked up and confirmed that the Government servant’s inability to attend the enquiry is not because of non-payment of subsistence allowance.
[Deptt. of Personnel & Training, OM No. 11012/17/85-Estt.(A) dated the 28th October, 1985.