2. Heard Mr. M.Shalini, learned Government Pleader for
Services III for the appellant. Perused the record.
3. The instant appeal has been filed against the order passed
4. Vide the impugned order, the learned Single Bench in the
5. The contempt petition arose out of a pending writ petition
04.08.2023. The interim order so passed by the learned Single
"However, in the meantime, since there is no
severance of service of the petitioner, the
respondents are directed to pay the salary to the
petitioner as per her entitlement. The payment shall
be made within a period of four (04) weeks from
the date of receipt of this order."
6. The writ petitioner before the writ Court i.e.,
Ms. N. Haripriya got appointed as a Mandal Parishad Development
Officer (MPDO) on 09/10.01.2018. It is said that after having
worked for some time from 05.07.2019 onwards, the writ petitioner
went on unauthorized absence after having initially obtained
sanction for leave on 05.07.2019 and 06.07.2019 and she remained
absent from duty continuously till 06.06.2022.
7. Meanwhile, for the unauthorized absence, the Department
thought it fit for initiating disciplinary proceedings and for which a
charge memo was also issued on 08.03.2022. After the charge
memo was issued, the writ petitioner reported for duty on
06.06.2022. However, the appellant/Department did not extract
any work from the writ petitioner in the light of the pending
disciplinary proceedings. Since even after reporting for duty, the
appellant/Department was not extracting work from the writ
petitioner nor was she being paid the salary.
8. The writ petition i.e., W.P.No.17983 of 2023 was filed
seeking for an appropriate direction to the respondents to accept the
joining and to grant salary. It was in the said writ petition that an
interim order was also sought for before the learned Single Bench
for an interim direction directing the State to release the salary.
It was in this context that the interim prayer of the writ petitioner
was allowed, which is already reproduced in the earlier paragraph.
9. The said order was not complied with and which led to filing
of the contempt case i.e., C.C.No.2078 of 2023. The respondents
were noticed and called upon to explain as to why contempt should
not be drawn and after hearing the parties, the Hon'ble Single
Bench has disposed of the contempt proceedings with the direction
that has been already reproduced in the initial paragraph of this
order.
10. From the factual matrix that is culled out, undisputedly the
writ petitioner was on the rolls of the Department as an MPDO.
She had obtained sanction for leave for two days i.e., 05.07.2019
and 06.07.2019. However, she did not report back for duty and is
said to have remained under continuous unauthorized absence.
Meanwhile, the disciplinary proceedings were issued by issuance
of charge memo on 08.03.2022. Immediately on receipt of the
charge memo, the writ petitioner gave her joining on 06.06.2022,
from which time the respondents were not giving any duty to the
petitioner nor were they treating her as an employee on the rolls of
the Department.
11. It goes without saying that so far as an employee is
concerned, the fact that the employer has initiated disciplinary
proceedings itself is sufficient to establish that the employee was
on the rolls of the employer. No disciplinary proceedings can be
initiated against an already discharged or removed employee.
In the said context, the next question that needs to be appreciated
is, if the employee is considered to be on the rolls and is facing the
disciplinary proceedings, what would be the status of the employee
and the status could be only to either the employee facing the
disciplinary proceedings has to be treated as under suspension for
which an order has to be passed under Rule 10 of the Service
Rules, but if not the employee for all practical purposes would
be treated as on duty. There cannot be a third option available
pending the disciplinary proceedings in respect of the status of an
employee. It was this fact which was taken note of by the learned
Single Bench when it was observed in the course of passing of the
interim order that there is no severance of service of the writ
petitioner and it was in this backdrop that the learned Single Bench
ordered for at least paying the subsistence allowance to the
employee with which she may sustain, pending the writ petition
and also pending the disciplinary proceedings. In the opinion of
this Bench, the said observation of the learned Single Bench metes
the ends of justice and also stands ratified by the decision of
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CAPT. M.PAUL
ANTHONY vs BHARAT GOLD MINES LTD., AND
ANOTHER 1 wherein it was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court
that no employee pending the disciplinary proceedings can be
deprived of the payment of subsistence allowance.
12. In the instant case, from the contentions made by the State
Counsel, the services of the petitioner were never placed under
suspension, pending the disciplinary proceedings and there is also
no dispute so far as the petitioner having reported for duty after the
issuance of the charge memo and that she had reported back to
AIR 1999 SC 1416
service on 06.06.2022. The Department could had immediately
either placed her under suspension pending the disciplinary
proceedings or could had given her a joining and extracted work
and paid salary. The Department took neither of the options
available and continued with the disciplinary proceedings.
Surprisingly, even after the interim order was passed, the
Department still did not think it proper to comply with the order,
rather the authorities of the State Government subjected the interim
order to its own scrutiny and took a stand on 12.10.2023 not to
comply with the order and rejected the claim of the writ petitioner.
This action on the part of the authorities of the State Government
definitely is not appreciable. Though the said fact is not a point for
consideration before this Bench at this juncture in this appeal, the
order passed in the contempt case is dated 05.08.2025 and the order
was to be complied forthwith, which again till date has not been
complied with though more than two and half months have been
passed has not been honoured and the instant LPA has now been
filed questioning the order of compliance made in the contempt
case.
13. The writ petition as it is, is pending consideration. The State
ought to had taken all necessary steps in either challenging the
interim order or seeking modification of the interim order or
seeking review of the interim order. None of these options have
been resorted to by the State. In the said circumstances, if the
contempt Court taking into consideration the factual matrix of the
case has disposed of the contempt case with only a direction to
ensure compliance, we do not find any good ground made by the
State forcing us to hold that the order passed by the contempt Court
to be either erroneous or contrary to law. We are further of the
view that under Rule 27 of the Contempt Rules, the Court has the
power to pass such appropriate orders for doing substantial justice.
In the instant case also, it is only an endeavour made by the Court
to ensure that its earlier interim order passed in the writ petition is
honoured. For this reason also, we do not intend to interfere with
the impugned order.
14. Thus, the Letters Patent Appeal fails and is, accordingly,
dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall
stand closed.
_____________________
P.SAM KOSHY, J
_________________________________
SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO, J
30.10.2025
Lrkm/Rsp
