G.N. Shukla vs Madhya Pradesh Urja Vikas Nigam ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 10963 MP

                               1
      IN    THE       HIGH COURT OF MADHYA
                          PRADESH
                        AT GWALIOR
                         BEFORE
           HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANAND PATHAK
                    ON THE 17 th OF JULY, 2023
                 WRIT PETITION No. 5362 of 2020

BETWEEN:-
G.N. SHUKLA S/O LATE SHRI DEVI PRASAD
SHUKLA, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
GOVT.   SERVICE  B/92,  GALORY    VILLA
SATABDIPURAM, GWALIOR (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                      .....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI N.K. GUPTA, LEARNED SENIOR COUNSEL WITH SHRI S.D.
SINGH, COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER)

AND
1.    MADHYA PRADESH URJA VIKAS NIGAM
      LIMITED MANAGING DIRECTOR BUS STOP
      LINK, ROAD-2, SHIVAJI NAGAR (MADHYA
      PRADESH)

2.    CONTROLLER FINANCE AND ACCOUNTING
      MADHYA PRADESH URJA VIKAS NIGAM
      LIM ITED URJA BHAWAN 5 NO BUS STOP
      LINK ROAD 2 SHIVAJI NAGAR BHOPAL
      (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                   .....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI U.K. SHRIVAS-LEARNED COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENTS)

      This petition coming on for admission this day, the court passed
the following:
                                ORDER

With consent heard finally.

1. The present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is preferred by the petitioner seeking following reliefs:

"It is humbly prayed that the writ petition may kindly be allowed and the note put by the Controller, Finance and Accounting, Respondent No.2 in order Annexure P/1 dated 28.08.2015 that because of non decision of suspension period of the petitioner, increments of 2013 and 2014 are kept pending, be set aside with further directions to the respondents to grant the benefit of increments of 2013 and 2014 to the petitioner and revised the pay scale, salary of the petitioner.

Respondents be also directed to pay the difference of revised pay scale after awarding increments of 2013 and 2014 to the petitioner along with interest @ 18% per annum.

Any other writ, order or direction as this Hon'ble Court may deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the case be granted. Costs be awarded."

2. Precisely stated facts of the case are that petitioner is an employee of Madhya Pradesh Urja Vikas Nigam Limited (respondents No. 1 herein) and at the time of filing of petition posted in the office of Nigam as Assistant Engineer, District Morena.

3. Earlier vide order dated 7.9.2005 penalty of recovery of Rs.41,989.50/- was imposed against the petitioner and consequential order for recovery was passed on 23.12.2005. Both these orders were put to challenge by way of W.P. No.3145/2006 before this Court and this Court

vide order dated 26.11.2013 allowed the petition and quashed the order of penalty. However, liberty was given to take appropriate disciplinary action against the petitioner in accordance with law for the allegations which were not subject matter of the charge sheet.

4. After order being passed, order of recovery was set aside but meanwhile on 15.10.2013 petitioner was placed under suspension and within one month vide order dated 14.11.2013 (Annexure P/8) the suspension of the petitioner was revoked and petitioner was posted at Sheopur after revocation of suspension. Meanwhile, recovery order was quashed and the penalty amount which was deposited earlier by petitioner was returned back to him.

5. After revocation of suspension petitioner is working as Assistant Engineer and was due to receive increment every year on 1st of July but vide order dated 28.08.2015 (Annexure P/1) pay was revised because of recommendation of Sixth Pay Commission but he denied increments for year 2013 and 2014 on the ground that petitioner was placed under suspension and period of suspension has not been settled, therefore, increments for 2013 and 2014 cannot be given. Therefore, this petition has been preferred.

6. It is the submission of learned senior counsel appearing for petitioner that petitioner was placed under suspension for one month only between 15.10.2013 to 14.11.2013 purportedly because of his relegation to confinement/jail on 18.06.2013 because of one criminal case pending

against him vide Crime No.133/2002 at Police Station Habibganj Bhopal. However, he remained under suspension for one month and thereafter

suspension was revoked and period of suspension was kept pending because of the fact that W.P.No.3145/2006 was pending consideration at that point of time. Since said writ petition later on decided vide order 26.11.2013 and that fact regarding revocation was not surfaced in the discussion before the Court, therefore, no such direction was given regarding reconciliation of suspension period. Incidentally, no charge sheet was filed against the petitioner and according to learned senior counsel, at present no criminal case is pending against him. Therefore, denial of increments for 2013 and 2014 is arbitrary and illegal exercise, deserves to be quashed.

7. Per contra, learned counsel for respondents opposed the prayer and submits that petitioner was placed under suspension on 15.10.2013 but later on 14.11.2013 his suspension was revoked and it was decided that period of suspension would be decided after the order of Court and order of Court means order of criminal court. He submits that criminal case is pending consideration against the petitioner yet. However, he fairly concedes that he has not placed any documents in support of his submission that criminal case is pending. It is further submitted that he was placed under suspension on 19.06.2013 and therefore, this date would be treated as the date of initiation of suspension period. Since increment is payable on 1st of July of every year, therefore, increment of year 2013 and later on increment of year 2014 were not extended to petitioner. After finalization of criminal case, his suspension period shall be considered and thereafter increments shall be given.

8. Heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the documents appended thereto.

9. This is a case where petitioner is aggrieved by order dated 28.08.2015 (Annexure P/1) purportedly issued by Finance & Accounts Controller of respondent No.1 corporation. Petitioner received benefit of 6th Pay Commission and upgraded second time scale of pay was also determined in the calculation sheet. However, for 2013 and 2014 increments were denied as per the note 1 mentioned in the bottom of the increment.

10. Petitioner was placed under suspension on 15.10.2013 on the ground that he was arrested by the police on 18.06.2013, meaning thereby, that his date of suspension is 15.10.2013 and not 19.06.2013 as tried to be projected by counsel for respondent. Not only that suspension of petitioner was revoked on 14.11.2013 within one month and determination of period of suspension was observed to be decided after order of the Hon'ble Court. Here it appears that authority was persuaded by the thought that W.P. No.3145/2006 was pending. In the said writ petition, petitioner has challenged the disciplinary proceeding and the punishment order of recovery. The said writ petition was decided on 26.11.2013, 10 days after the order of revocation of suspension on 15.10.2013. It means the Managing Director of Corporation was persuaded by the thought about pendency of W.P. No.3145/2006.

11. After order dated 26.11.2013, although liberty was given to the respondents to take appropriate disciplinary action against the

petitioner in accordance with law for the allegations which were not subject matter of the charge sheet. However, surprisingly enough, respondents never proceeded against the petitioner for departmental inquiry during the suspension period or even after the revocation of suspension. Therefore, it is quite clear that no departmental inquiry was initiated by the respondents.

12. During the course of arguments, counsel for respondents Shri U.K. Shrivas referred the fact that departmental inquiry was initiated and when countered by this Court then he was unable to answer on facts regarding existence of such departmental inquiry. Thereafter, he referred the fact that criminal case is pending against the petitioner since 2002 and when specifically asked about any document in this regard then he expressed his inability but said that case is pending. However, in para 5.6 of writ petition petitioner has specifically mentioned the fact that after order of suspension till date there is no proceeding in any court of law against the petitioner is pending. In absence of any specific denial supported with documents it is difficult to assume pendency of any criminal case against the petitioner.

13. Be that as it may.

14. Even if assuming for a minute criminal case is pending, even then for last 10 years respondents have not settled the period of suspension of petitioner and have denied the increments for year 2013 and

2014 under the mistaken notion that petitioner was arrested on 19.06.2013.

15. Respondents are free to decide the period of suspension in accordance with law as per Fundamental Rule 54-B, but certainly are not reasonable enough to keep the matter pending for so long and denying the

employee his legitimate dues for which an employee is otherwise entitled to.

16. In facts and circumstances of the case, it is apposite to direct the respondents to consider the case of petitioner for period of suspension in accordance with law as per Fundamental Rule 54-B and in light of judgment passed in the case of Y.S. Sachan vs. State of M.P. 2003 (4) MPLJ 219, within one month from the date of submission of certified copy of this order. After determination of suspension period as per Fundamental Rule 54-B and relevant provisions, respondents shall decide the case of petitioner for grant of increment within one month thereafter so that petitioner may come to know the fate of his case at the earliest.

17. Petition stands allowed and disposed of in above terms.

(ANAND PATHAK) JUDGE Van VANDANA VERMA 2023.07.20 18:03:42 -07'00'