Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C. Vs. N.Lakshminarayana  INSC 207 (30 March 1994)
Singh (J) Kuldip Singh (J) Yogeshwar Dayal (J)
1994 SCC (3) 379 JT 1994 (7) 52 1994 SCALE (2)426
Judgment of the Court was delivered by KULDIP SINGH, J.- N. Lakshminarayana,
respondent in the appeal herein, was working as an Assistant Mechanical
Supervisor with the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation
(Corporation). He was placed under suspension with effect from 21-10-1974 on the basis of the allegation that he was found
stealing certain articles belonging to the Corporation. The respondent was
tried by the criminal court for the offence of theft and was finally acquitted
by the court on 17-3-1976. During the period when the
criminal proceedings were in progress, the respondent was also charge sheeted
and a departmental enquiry was held against him. It is not necessary for us to
go into the factual details any more and suffice it to say that the respondent
was finally reinstated into service. The question for consideration before the
High Court was whether the respondent was entitled to the payment of full
remunerations during the period when he remained under suspension as a result
of the criminal trial and the departmental enquiry.
High Court answered the question in the affirmative and in favour of the
respondent. This appeal by way of special leave petition is against the
judgment of the High Court.
the interpretation of Regulations 18, 20 and 21 of the Andhra Pradesh State
Road Transport Corporation Employees (Classification, Control and Appeal)
Regulations, 1967 (the Regulations) the High Court came to the conclusion that
the respondent was entitled to the full remuneration for the period during
which the respondent remained under suspension. It is not disputed that
Regulations 18 and 20 of the Regulations were amended with effect from 12-9-1977.
result of the amendment Regulation 20(3) of the Regulations was deleted. Since
the suspension period of the respondent was prior to 12-9-1977 the date of the amendment of the Regulations the
High Court based its judgment on the 381 unamended Regulations. It is not
necessary for us to go into the merits of the High Court judgment because the
amended Regulations have considerably changed the legal position. In our view
the High Court judgment is not a precedent on the interpretation of the amended
otherwise in view of our judgment in civil appeals arising out of Special Leave
Petition (C) Nos. 15348-49 of 1993 and 17932-34 of 1993 dated 30-3-1994 the
impugned judgment of the High Court is no longer a good law.
Ahmed, learned Additional Solicitor General appearing for the appellant has
fairly stated that the Corporation shall, in any case, comply with the judgment
of the High Court and pay the remunerations granted to the respondent if not
already paid. We dispose of the civil appeal in the above terms. No costs.