Dear All,
This was really a good topic for the postings by so many experienced contributor. Suspension is ipso facto not a punishment. Suspension's main objective is for the fair inquiry proceeding so that witnesses may not be tempered with while deposing their statements. So supension is not meant for the punishment.
For what ever complains, charges, or omissions or commissions, if an employee is suspended then he is entitled subsistence allowances as per rule 10A of the Industrial Employment (standing orders) Act, 1946. An Employee is entitled for the 50% of the wages upto first 90 days period pending enquiry proceedings and 75% of the wages as subsistance allowances if the delay in enquiry proceedings beyond 90 days is not attributable to him. In private employment, subsistance allowances can not be increased more than 75% but in Government employment under FR/SR rules he is entitled for the 90% of the basic pay + Allowances + HRA, if departmental enquiry proceedings is delayed beyond six months due to reasons not attributable to the employee.
Now, after being suspension is revoked and employee joins duty after the completion of the enquiry proceedings, then three situation arises:-
1. The grave misconduct charges are proved under the enquiry and the employee is either dismissed or removed or compulsorily retired or major penalty is levied on the employee under the rules.
2. The misconduct is proved but the penalty levied upon the employee is minor under the rules of the company or Government and the employee is retained under the employment.
3. The misconduct is not proved and the employee is exonerated of the charges levied upon him.
In the (2) and (3) above, subsistance allowances will be paid and in (1) above subsistance allowances shall not be paid. This is the statute position till now.
Thanks to all.
Raj Singh Phogat
Advocate