Certo Is this judgment real?
Beta, Supreme Court only. We check Supreme Court of India judgments only for now: a High Court citation reads "Not in our corpus", which never means it does not exist.

Supreme Court of India

SMT. K. PONNAMMA versus THE STATE OF KERALA AND ORS.

Decided
17 March 1997
Judges listed
K. RAMASWAMY, G.T. NANAVATI (as the open data lists them; this may not name the whole bench)
Disposal
Dismissed

Citations

Official
[1997] 2 S.C.R. 1149 · 1997 INSC 277
Also cited as
  • (1997) 9 SCC 36 (4 citing judgments)

Learned from how other judgments cite this one, in their text or in the official Supreme Court Reports' lists of cases they refer to: each is cited this way by at least two judgments, and at least twice as often as any other citation to this judgment in that report. We hold no commercial reporter's text, only these citation strings.

Cited by

We found no other Supreme Court judgment we hold that cites this one.

Counted only in the Supreme Court judgments we hold whose text we could read, not in High Court judgments. We match each citation to a judgment automatically, so a citation we cannot match is not counted. "Cited" says only that a judgment refers to this one, not whether it followed, distinguished or overruled it.

The Court's text

Paragraphs from our copy of the Supreme Court Reports print, with the Court's own paragraph numbers, the printed page and, where printed, the margin letter. The Court did not number this judgment's paragraphs, so they are listed by page. Link to paragraph N with #para-N.

This special leave petition has been filed against the Judgment of the Kerala High Court, made on November 7, 1996 in Writ Appeal No. 850/1996.

p. 1149, margin E

Admittedly, the petitioner and her husband were charged for an offence under Section 302 and also Section 201 I.P.C. etc. While the husband of the petitioner was convicted, she was acquitted of the offences under Section 301 and also 201, getting her the benefit of doubt. Consequently, she was reinstated into service but back wages were denied, after conducting the enquiry under Kerala Service Rules. Rules 57 of the Rules provides that :

p. 1149, margin F

"An Officer who is detained in custody, whether on a criminal charge or otherwise, for a perfo<l exceeding forty eight hours, or is undergoing imprisonment, shall be deemed to be under suspension with effect from the date of commencement of the detention or imprisonment, as the case may be, and shall not be allowed to draw any pay and allowances <luring such period of suspension other than any subsistence allowance and other allowances that may be granted in accordance with Rule55, until he is reinstated

pp. 1149–1150, margin H

in service." Ruic 56 of the Rules provides thus:

p. 1150, margin B

"(1) When an officer who has been dismissed, removed or eompulsary retired including an officer who has been compulsory retired under rule 60A, is reinstated as a result of appeal or review or would have been so reinstated, but for his retirement on superannuation while under suspension or not, the authority competent to order reinstatement shall consider and make specific order: (a) regarding the pay and allowances to be paid to the officer for the period of his absence from duty including the period of suspension preceding his dismissal, removal, or compulsory retirement, as the case may be, (b) whether or not the said perio_d shall be treated as a period

p. 1150, margin C

spent on duty."

p. 1150, margin E

A reading thereof would clearly indicate that where an officer has been kept under suspension, on account of the pendency of the charges/detention for 48 hours and continued to remain under suspension pending the trial of the criminal charge, statutorily he/she is disabled to perform the duties of the post. On reinstatement under Rule 56, the competent authority shall have a duty to consider whether, on reinstatement, suspended officer would be entitled to the payment of full pay etc. for the period of his suspension. The mandate of Rule 56 is that the competent authority should consider the case in accordance with the rules and pass the order. The nature of the order is discretionary depending upon the facts in the case. It is seen that on account of the involvement of the petitioner in a criminal charge by statutory operation, she was under suspension till she was a~quitte<l. On acquittal, the departmental enquiry was conducted as to the nature of the order to be made under Rule 56.

p. 1150, margin E

Accordingly, the authority, in its discretion, found that the payment of the salary during the period of suspension except suspension allowance already paid, could not be granted. It being accordance with the Rules, we do not think that the High Court has committed any et ror warranting interference.

p. 1151, margin A

The special leave petition is dismissed. R.P. Petition dismissed.

p. 1151, margin B