RBE No.11/1986 Subsistence Allowance D&A Rules – Suspension – Timely Payment of

No.E(D&A)86 RG6-2, dated 06.02.1986

Sub: Timely payment of Subsistence Allowance to Government servants who are placed under suspension – Recommendation of National Council (JCM).

A copy of Office Memorandum No.11012/17/85-Estt(A), dated 28.10.1985 received from the Department of Personnel & Training on the above subject, is sent herewith, along with a copy of the Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms’ OM No.11012/10/76-Estt.(A), dated 06.10.1976.

The contents of these memoranda may be brought to the notice of all concerned. The earlier OM No.11012/10/76-Estt.(A), dated 06.10.1976 of the D.O.P. was circulated under Board’s letter No.E(D&A)81 RG6-22, dated 18.08.1981.

Copy of Department of Personnel & Training
O.M. No.11012/17/85-Estt(A), dated 28.10.1985

Sub: Timely payment of Subsistence Allowance to Government servants who are placed under suspension – Recommendation of National Council (JCM).

1. The undersigned is directed to invite attention of this Department’s OM No.11012/10/76-Estt.(A), dated the 6th October, 1976 (copy enclosed) on the above subject mentioned above and to say that the staff side of the Committee of National Council (JCM) set up to review CCS (CC&A) Rules, 1965 has pointed out that in-spite of clear instructions, a large number of government servants who are under suspension are not being paid the subsistence allowance regularly.

2. As mentioned in the OM 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 fulfillment of the conditions laid down in FR-53.

In cases where recourse to ex-parte proceedings becomes necessary, it 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.

3. Ministry to agriculture etc. are requested to bring these instructions to the notice of all the authorities concerned under their control.

Copy of the Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms’
OM No.11012/10/76-Estt.(A), dated 06.10.1976

Sub: CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 – Recourse to ex-parte proceedings under Rule 14(20) – Clarification regarding.

1. The undersigned is directed to say that in the case of Ghanshyam Das Srivastava v. 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 ex-parte 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 enquiry on account of financial difficulties caused by non-payment of subsistence allowance.

The Court had held that holding the enquiry ex-party under such circumstances would be violative of Article 311(2) of the Constitution on account of denial of reasonable opportunities of defence. This point may also be kept in view by all authorities concerned, before involving the provisions of rule 14(20) of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965.

4. Ministry of Finance etc. are requested to bring the contents of this Office Memorandum to the notice of all concerned under their control.

Download Railway Board Circular RBE No. 11/1986