Chattisgarh High Court

Kunjlal Sinha vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 29 September, 2021

                                        1

                                                                         NAFR
             HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

                          WPS No. 5241 of 2021

      Kunjlal Sinha S/o Shri Santu Lal Sinha, Aged About 42 Years, Working
      As Jail Teacher And Posted At Gariyaband Jail, District Gariyaband
      Chhattisgarh

                                                                      ---- Petitioner

                                     Versus

   1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Home,
      Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, New Raipur, District
      Raipur Chhattisgarh

   2. Director General Of Police (Jail), Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

   3. Jail   Superintendent,   Sub    Jail   Gariyaband,   District     Gariyaband
      Chhattisgarh.
                                                               ----Respondents

For Petitioner : Shri Ajay Shrivastava, Advocate.

For State                 :     Shri Kunal Das, P.L.


                      Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy
                               Order On Board
29.09.2021

1. The limited grievance of petitioner in the present writ petition is the

settlement of the dues payable to him during the period of suspension.

2. The facts of the case are that the petitioner is presently posted as a

Teacher (jail) at Gariyaband Jail, district Gariyaband. During the period

2013, the petitioner was posted at Sub Jail, Sarangarh, district Raigarh

and was working on the post of Jail Teacher. The petitioner was

placed under suspension vide order dated 18.06.2013 contemplating

the disciplinary proceedings. Subsequently, the petitioner was also

issued with a charge sheet for disciplinary proceedings under Rule 14

of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Appeal, Classification & Control)

Rules, 1966 on the alleged act of major misconduct. The disciplinary

proceedings were concluded and finally the petitioner was inflicted with

a punishment of stoppage of one annual increment without cumulative

effect vide order dated 02.08.2021. The respondents have also made

an observation in the impugned order that for the period of suspension

the petitioner would not be entitled for anything else, other than what

he has already received for the said period. It is this portion of the

impugned order which the petitioner is aggrieved of.

3. The contention of the counsel for petitioner is that once when the

disciplinary proceedings have been initiated under Rule-14 for an

alleged act of major misconduct and the disciplinary proceedings

results in the imposition of a minor punishment, for that intervening

period during which the petitioner's services were placed under

suspension he would be entitled for all consequential benefits including

the monetary benefits minus the subsistence allowance that he has

already received. The reliance was placed upon the circular of the

State Govt. in this regard dated 23.11.2010 supported with a judgment

of the Madhya Pradesh in the case of Y. S. SachanVs. State of MP

reported in 2004 (1) MPHT22.

4. The issue raised by the petitioner in the present writ petition had come

up for hearing before this Court in an identical set of facts in WPS No.

3463/2010 which was decided on 10.07.2018. In the said judgment

this Court had taken into consideration the aforesaid circular and the

judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court while deciding the said

writ petition. This Court, in paragraphs 7 to 10 in WPS No. 3463/2010

has held as under:

"7. It would be relevant at this juncture to refer paragraph 8 of the judgment of MP High Court in case of Y.S. Sachan (Supra) which is being reproduced herein as under :

"8. So far as the salary for the period of suspension is concerned, the petitioner should be paid full salary. A minor penalty has been imposed upon the petitioner. The punishment is so light and therefore the petitioner could not be saddled with the heavier penalty of depriving him the salary for the suspension period. This part of the impugned order is not a speaking order. No reasons have been assigned for depriving the petitioner of his salary for the suspension period. The Government of India has issued a circular dated 3-12-1985 stating there in that where departmental proceedings against a suspended employee for the imposition of a major penalty finally end with the imposition of a minor penalty, the suspension can be said to be wholly unjustified in terms of F.R. 54-B and the employee concerned should, therefore, be paid full pay and allowances for the period of suspension by passing a suitable order under F.R. 54-B. The guideline issued by the Central Government for its employees is just and reasonable and it should be followed by the State Government and its instrumentality. The Jabalpur Development Authority is also such instrumentality and it will also be governed by such interpretation of Rule 54-B of the Fundamental Rules."

8. The respondent-State of Chhattisgarh by a subsequent circular dated 23.11.2010 have adopted the same analogy wherein in paragraph 6 of the said circular it has been held as under:

6- eq[; 'kkfLr gsrq lafLFkr foHkkxh; tkWp esa ;fn fdlh fuyafcr 'kkldh; lsod ij tkWp mijkar y?kq 'kkfLr gh vf/kjksfir dh tkrh gS rks mldk fuyacu vkSfpR;iw.kZ ugh ekuk tk ldrkA vr% jkT; 'kklu us fu.kZ; fy;k gS fd ,sls ekeyksa esa lacaf/kr 'kkldh; lsod dh fuyacu vof/k dks ewyHkwr fu;e &54&ch ds ifjizs{; esa drZO; vof/k ekU; dj fuyacu vof/k ds laiw.kZ osru&HkRRks ('kkldh; lsod ds fuyacu vof/k esa Hkqxrku fd, x, ^^thou fuokZg HkRrs^^ dh jkf'k dk lek;kstu dj) fn, tk,aA ;g fu.kZ; bl Kkiu ds izdkf'kr gksus dh frfFk ls ykxw gksxk rFkk ftu izdj.kksa esa fu.kZ; fy;k tk pqdk gS] os iqu% ugh [kksys

tk,axsA^^

9. When we compare the aforesaid circular of the State Govt. as also the judgment of MP High Court in case of Y.S. Sachan (Supra) to the facts of the present case, both squarely fits into the facts of the present case wherein proceeding against the present petitioner though was initiated for major misconduct, but ended without any punishment after conclusion of DE. Therefore, the petitioner would be entitled for all consequential reliefs for the period of suspension between 13.01.2005 to 24.06.2006.

10. The writ petition accordingly stands allowed and disposed of. It is directed that the petitioner be granted entire relief which he was otherwise entitled for had he not been placed under suspension between 13.01.2005 to 24.06.2006. While granting the said relief, the respondents shall adjust the subsistence allowance that has already been paid to him."

5. The said order was not further challenged by the respondents and has

attained finality.

6. Given the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and

considering the fact that the issue in the present writ petition also if not

identical is similar in nature where the petitioner has subjected to

disciplinary proceedings under Rule-14. However, the punishment was

one which was a minor punishment. Thus, the said judgment of this

Court rendered in WPS No. 3463/2010 shall be squarely applicable in

the case of the petitioner also. The writ petition therefore deserves to

be and is accordingly allowed.

7. The impugned order Annexure P-1 dated 02.08.2021 to the extent of

the decision of the respondents that the petitioner shall not be entitled