A common practice in government departments is that, upon the receipt of a complaint against an employee, a departmental inquiry is commenced and the employee’s salary is withheld during pendency of such inquiry. In many instances, the employee is also prevented from discharging departmental duties, despite the fact that no punitive order has been passed against him or her and the employee has neither been formally suspended nor dismissed from service.
In accordance with the procedure established by law, an employee’s salary cannot be withheld, nor can the employee be restrained from performing departmental duties, merely on the basis of a complaint or the pendency of a departmental inquiry, unless the prescribed departmental procedure has been duly completed and a valid order has been passed by the competent authority.
In many cases, it is found that an employee’s salary is withheld on the basis of alleged irregularities in the appointment process, even after rendering decades of service. Although no fixed statutory time limit has been prescribed for the completion of a departmental inquiry, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Md Zamil Ahmed vs State of Bihar (AIR 2016 SC 2237) categorically held that departmental proceedings must be initiated within a fair, just, and reasonable period. Administrative inaction, negligence, or undue delay on the part of the authorities cannot be permitted to operate to the detriment of the employee.
In Radhey Shyam Yadav vs State of U.P. (2024 AIR SC 260) the Hon’ble Supreme Court directed the State Government to release the salaries and arrears due to the appellant teachers. The Court found that the teachers had never been formally dismissed from service. Their salaries had been withheld solely on allegations of fraud, without any order of termination or dismissal. The Supreme Court held that, in the absence of a valid dismissal order, the appellants must be treated as being in continuous service and, consequently, remained entitled to salary and all consequential service benefits.
A Single Judge Bench of Justice Piyush Agrawal of the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court, while granting relief to the petitioner teachers in Sanjay Kumar Singh vs District Basic Education Officer, Jaunpur ( WRIT – A No. – 23843 of 2018) held that unless the initial approval of their appointments is lawfully withdrawn or revoked, they shall be deemed to continue in service and shall be entitled to receive salary in accordance with law.
Therefore, in the light of the aforesaid decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court, it is clear that an employee cannot be deprived of work or denied salary unless he is lawfully placed under suspension, subjected to disciplinary proceedings in accordance with law, or his services are validly terminated. In the absence of such action, the employee shall be deemed to continue in service and shall remain entitled to full salary and all consequential service benefits.
(The author is a practising Advocate at the Allahabad High Court and specializes in service law.)
