Suspension Period Cannot Be Treated as Duty Unless There Is Full Exoneration or Specific Order: Madras High Court Reverses Relief Granted to Constable

When Charges Are Proved, and Only Punishment is Modified, Employee Cannot Seek Automatic Benefit of Duty Treatment for Suspension or Removal Period - Madras High Court set aside a Single Judge’s direction treating the suspension and dismissal period of a police constable as “duty for all purposes”. The Bench, comprising Justices R. Subramanian and G. Arul Murugan, ruled that in the absence of full exoneration or specific direction under Fundamental Rules 54 and 54-B, such periods cannot automatically be treated as duty.
The Court held, “When the punishment of removal from service was imposed in disciplinary proceedings for proven charges, the period cannot be treated as duty merely because the punishment was later modified.”
The respondent, D. Sathiyaseelan, was a Grade-II Constable in the Chennai Police. He was placed under suspension on 24.05.1995 after being arrested and remanded in a criminal case involving allegations of abduction and robbery under Section 395 IPC. Though later acquitted in the criminal case, departmental proceedings for misconduct continued and culminated in a dismissal from service on 25.10.2005.
After a long procedural history involving two remands by the High Court, the appellate authority ultimately modified the punishment from dismissal to a reduction in pay by three stages for three years with cumulative effect. Sathiyaseelan rejoined duty on 27.08.2010. However, the department treated his suspension period (24.05.1995 to 31.05.2000) and the dismissal-to-reinstatement period (25.10.2005 to 26.08.2010) as leave without pay or earned leave, prompting him to challenge the order before the High Court.
The Single Judge allowed the writ petition on 02.01.2023, holding that under FR 54-B(1)(9), the suspension and dismissal periods had to be treated as duty since the criminal case had ended in acquittal.
The central issue before the Division Bench was whether the respondent, having been acquitted in the criminal case but not exonerated in the departmental proceedings, could claim the benefit of having his suspension and removal periods treated as duty.
The Court clarified that the case fell under Fundamental Rule 54-B(1)(11), not sub-rule (9), stating: “Sub-rule (9) deals with cases where suspension or removal is purely due to criminal proceedings, and the employee is later acquitted. But where departmental charges are also proven and punishment imposed, Rule 54-B(1)(11) applies.”
It further held: “When the appellate authority modified the punishment without directing that the intervening period be treated as duty, the competent authority was right in settling the said period as leave without pay or earned leave as per eligibility.”
Quoting from FR 54(5), the Court emphasized: “The period of absence from duty… shall not be treated as period spent on duty, unless the competent authority specifically directs that it shall be treated for any specified purpose.”
The Bench found no error in the administrative order dated 31.01.2014, which had converted the said periods into eligible leave. It rejected the Single Judge’s interpretation of FR 54-B(1)(9) and observed: “We are not in agreement with the decision arrived at by the writ court… the period is covered only by sub-rule (11) and FR 54(5), not sub-rule (9).”
Setting aside the judgment of the Single Judge, the Division Bench allowed the appeal. However, the Court granted partial relief by protecting the continuity of service for pensionary purposes:
“It is made clear that for those periods, the respondent will be deemed to be in continuity of service for calculating pensionary benefits.”
In a detailed and nuanced judgment, the Madras High Court laid down clear boundaries regarding the treatment of suspension and dismissal periods. The ruling reinforces that unless there is full exoneration or a specific direction by the disciplinary or appellate authority, such periods cannot be claimed as duty, even in cases where the punishment is subsequently mitigated.
The Court reiterated: “Modified punishment without full exoneration does not entitle an employee to automatic benefits under FR 54 or FR 54-B unless there is a specific direction to treat the period as duty.”

Date of Decision: 01 April 2025