Smt Sarla Agrawal vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2023 Latest Caselaw 2907 MP

Citation : 2023 Latest Caselaw 2907 MP
Judgement Date : 17 February, 2023

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Smt Sarla Agrawal vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 17 February, 2023

Author: Milind Ramesh Phadke

                               1

     IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                         AT GWALIOR
                            BEFORE
     HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MILIND RAMESH PHADKE
                 ON THE 17TH FEBRUARY, 2023

                WRIT PETITION No.14643/2022

       Between:-

       SMT.     SARLA    AGRAWAL,     W/O    SHRI
       MAHESH      CHAND    AGRAWAL,        AGE-63
       YEARS,     OCCUPATION-PENSIONER,        R/O
       OPPOSITE MOHITE SAHAB KA BADA,
       LAKKADKHANA,        LASHKAR,     GWALIOR
       (M.P.)


                                            .....PETITIONER

       (BY SHRI ALOK KATARE - ADVOCATE)

       AND
1.     STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH
       PRINCIPAL        SECRETARY,      SCHOOL
       EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, VALLABH
       BHAWAN, BHOPAL (M.P.)
2.     COMMISSIONER, PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS,
       GAUTAM NAGAR, BHOPAL-462021 (M.P.)
3.     JOINT DIRECTOR,
       PUBLIC       INSTRUCTIONS      DIVISION,
       GWALIOR (M.P.)
                                       2

4.     DISTRICT TREASURY OFFICER,
       DISTRICT GWALIOR (M.P.)



                                                     .....RESPONDENTS

       (BY SHRI S.K. SHARMA - GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE )

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
       This petition coming on for hearing this day, Hon'ble Shri
Justice Milind Ramesh Phadke passed the following:

                               ORDER

The present petition under Article 226/227 of the

Constitution of India had been filed by the petitioner seeking

following reliefs:-

(i) Order dated 11.08.2020(Annexure P/1) and the appellate order dated 29.12.2021 (Annexure P/2) so far as it orders the entitlement of the petitioner for subsistance allowances for the suspension period instead of full salary for the suspension period from 30.9.2019 to 11.08.2020 may kindly be quashed.

(ii) Respondents may kindly be directed to pay full salary of the petitioner for the suspension period i.e. From 30.09.2019 to 11.08.2020 with all consequential benefits.

(iii) Any other releif deemed fit in the facts and circumstances of the case may also be kindly granted.

(iv) cost may also be awarded.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was

appointed on the post of LDC in the year 1988. She retired on

31.03.2021. During her service in the year 2019, she was

suspended by Joint Director, Public Instructions Division,

Gwalior and thereafter vide order dated 05.11.2019, a charge

sheet was issued against the petitioner alleging certain

illegalities committed by her.

3. It was vehemently argued by the counsel for the petitioner

that after issuance of charge sheet, no departmental inquiry was

conducted and without initiation of the departmental

proceedings, she was suspended by Joint Director, Public

Instructions Division, Gwalior vide order dated 30.09.2019

(Annexure P/3) and thereafter, transferred the petitioner to

Govt. Maharani Laxmi Bai Girls Higher Secondary School,

Morar, Gwalior with payment of subsistence allowance during

the period of suspension i.e. From 30.09.2019 to 11.08.2020.

Againt which, she filed an appeal and vide order dated

29.12.2021, the Commissioner, Public Instructions, Bhopal has

dismissed the said appeal. In the light of the judgment passed in

the case of Y.S. Sachan Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh &

others reported in 2004(1) MPHT 22, the impuned order is

bad in law. Therefore, learned counsel for the petitioner prayed

for quashment of impugned order.

5. Per contra, learned Government Advocate for the State

opposed the prayer made by counsel for the petitioner and

prayer for dismissal of the writ petition.

6. Heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and

perused the record.

7. It is a settled principal of Law that where departmental

proceedings against a suspended employee for imposition of a

major penalty finally ends in 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 and here the case of the

petitioner is on better footing as in pursuance to the charge

sheet the petitioner was neither awared any major or minor

penalty, but was only transferred, which neither comes under

major or minor penalty. 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 here there is no order of

any major or a minor penalty, the stoppage of salary and

increment for the period under suspension is not justified.

8. This Court in the matter of Y.S. Sachan (supra) in para 8 had

held as under:

"8. So far as the salary for the period of suspension is concerned, the petitioner should be paid full salary. A minorpenalty has been imposed upon the petitioner. The punishment is so light and therefore the petitioner could not be saddles 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."

9. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. The impugned orders

dated 11.08.2020 (Annexure P/1) and 29.12.2021 (Annexure

P/2) are modified to the extent as indicated above. The

respondents are directed to pay the full salary to the petitioner

for the suspension period within a period of two months from

the date of receiving certified copy of the order.