Under the MSEDCL Employees Service Regulations, 2005, can a reporting condition in a suspension order justify denying subsistence allowance for the whole period where suspension continues for years without review?

No. Regulation 88(a)(iii) makes subsistence allowance dependent on compliance with a reporting direction, but it cannot be read apart from Regulation 88(a)(ii), which requires that continuation of suspension beyond six months be referred to the next higher authority for review. Absent such review, the original suspension order cannot perpetually sustain the denial. Regulation 88(a)(v) further uses the expression 'already paid or payable', showing that subsistence allowance stands apart from arrears of pay and cannot be denied merely because the suspension period is later treated as punishment.

MSEDCL Employees Service Regulations, 2005 — Reg. 88(j) — Reg. 88(a)(ii), (iii), (v) — Reg. 91(2) — Constitution of India — Art. 311(1) — Disciplinary proceedings — Show-cause notice on punishment — Subsistence allowance — Amalgam of penalties — Proportionality — MSEDCL Employees Service Regulations, 2005 — Reg. 88(j) — Defective domestic enquiry — Fresh notice on punishment — Held: Proving misconduct afresh before the Labour Court cures only the defective enquiry's proof of guilt. The disciplinary authority must still apply its independent mind to the findings which ultimately survived and issue a fresh show-cause notice on punishment. (¶46, 56) MSEDCL Employees Service Regulations, 2005 — Reg. 88(a)(ii), (iii) — Suspension beyond six months — Subsistence allowance — Held further: A reporting condition cannot deny subsistence allowance perpetually, since Regulation 88(a)(iii) must be read with Regulation 88(a)(ii), which requires review once suspension crosses six months. Absent such review, the original suspension order cannot sustain the denial. (¶69, 73) MSEDCL Employees Service Regulations, 2005 — Reg. 91(2)(d), (g) — Same misconduct — Amalgam of penalties barred — Held further: Where the Regulations prescribe distinct penalties, an amalgam of separate substantive penalties for the same misconduct is impermissible. Dismissal cannot be coupled with a direction treating the suspension period as punishment. (¶87, 88) MSEDCL Employees Service Regulations, 2005 — Reg. 91(2)(g) — Dismissal — Proportionality and long service — Held further: Dismissal, the severest penalty, must be reserved for the most serious misconduct; absent corruption, moral turpitude or misappropriation, and with long service, a lesser penalty must be considered. Misconduct finding undisturbed; dismissal set aside; appeal partly allowed. (¶106, 110)

One judgment a day. That's the whole habit.

Read the full text of SUREKHA DOMAJI BELE v. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, TESTING DIVISION, MSEDCL — and get the Supreme Court's output as a five-minute daily read, with plain-language headnotes and the questions each judgment settles.

Free forever plan · 30 seconds · data stays in India