Citation : 2023 Latest Caselaw 2872 MP
Judgement Date : 16 February, 2023
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MILIND RAMESH PHADKE
ON THE 16 th OF FEBRUARY, 2023
WRIT PETITION No. 3974 of 2023
BETWEEN:-
SHIV KUMAR GUPTA S/O SHRI R.S. GUPTA, AGED
ABOUT 64 YEARS, BUJURG ROAD OPPOSITE TIWARI
CHAKKI DABRA, GWALIOR (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI ARUN KATARE - ADVOCATE )
AND
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH :
THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF
KISAN KALYAN TATHA KRISHI VIKAS VIGHAB,
GOVT OF MP VALLABH BHAWAN, BHOPAL
(MADHYA PRADESH)
2. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR MP RAJYA BEEJ
EVAM FARM VIKAS NIGAM BEEJ BHAWAN 36
MOTHER TERESA MARG ARRERA HILLS BHOPAL
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI DEEPAK KHOT - GOVT. ADVOCATE)
This petition coming on for HEARING this day, the court passed the
following:
ORDER
Instant petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been preferred by the petitioner seeking following reliefs:-
"i. That, the present petition filed by the petitioner may kindly be allowed;
ii. That, the order Annexure P/1 so far as it relates keeping the order of imposition of recovery of Rs.12,275/- and treating of period of suspension period as no work no pay may kindly be
directed to be set-aside.
iii. That, any other just, suitable and proper relief, which this Hon'ble Court deems fit, may also be granted to the petitioner. Costs be also awarded in favour of the petitioner;".
A t the outset, learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the order passed by this Court on 29th November, 2022 in W.P. No.17/2017 Lokendra Singh Bhadoriya Vs. The State of M.P. and others and submits that issue in question is squarely answered by the said order wherein, relying upon the judgment rendered by this Court in the case of Y.S.Sachan Vs. Stte of M.P. and others reported in 2004 (1) MPHT 22, it was held that where departmental proceedings against a suspended employee for imposition of a
major penalty finally ends with imposition of a minor penalty, the suspension can be said to be wholly unjustified in terms of F.R. 54-B and the employee should be paid full salary and allowances for the period of suspension. Apart from that the State Government had issued a circular dated 13/01/2005, wherein a policy decision had been taken by the State Government to grant all salary and increments to the Government employees in accordance with F.R. 54-B, in the matters where the suspended Government employees after departmental inquiry are only punished with minor punishment and since the order of major penalty had culminated in a minor penalty the stoppage of salary and increment for the period under suspension is not justified.
It was further held that so far as the recovery part is concerned, since the very order imposing minor penalty of warning since had not been challenged by the petitioner, which implies that he had accepted his fault and thus, in such obtaining facts and circumstances of the case the recovery of Rs.12,275/- cannot be faulted with and this part of the order is affirmed. He seeks parity.
Learned Government Advocate for the respondents/State fairly submitted
that issue involves is identical vis-a-vis cases referred above.
Heard.
In view of the aforesaid, this petition is allowed and disposed of in terms o f the order dated 29th November, 2022 in W.P. No.17/2017 Lokendra Singh Bhadoriya Vs. The State of M.P. and others Directions as contained therein, shall be made applicable mutatis mutandis to the facts and circumstances of the present case.
E-copy/Certified copy as per rules/directions.
(MILIND RAMESH PHADKE) JUDGE Rks
RAM KUMAR SHARMA 2023.02.16 17:57:51 +05'30'
Publish Your Article
Campus Ambassador
Media Partner
Campus Buzz
LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026
LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!