Mohammad Mumtaz Khan vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2023 Latest Caselaw 3789 MP

                             1

     IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                       AT GWALIOR
                           BEFORE
     HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MILIND RAMESH PHADKE
                   ON THE 03rd MARCH, 2023

               WRIT PETITION No.5379/2023

       Between:-

       MOHAMMAD MUMTAZ KHAN S/O SHRI
       ILIAS KHAN, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,
       OCCUPATION: PANCHAYAT SECRETARY
       VILL.   NARKHEDA    NARKHEDA   JAGIR
       VIDISHA (MADHYA PRADESH)


                                      .....PETITIONER

       (BY SHRI ARUN DUDAWAT - ADVOCATE)

       AND
1.     THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
       PRINCIPAL SECRETARY GOVT. OF M.P.
       VALLABH BHAWAN BHOPAL (MADHYA
       PRADESH)
2.     CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER ZILA
       PANCHAYAT DISTRICT VIDISHA (MADHYA
       PRADESH)

                                       .....RESPONDENTS
                                       2

       (BY    SHRI      KAUSHLENDRA           SINGH      -    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) Issuing a writ of certiorari or any other suitable writ or order or Direction for quashing the impugned order dated 28.06.2021 (Annexure P/1) thereby directing respondent No.2 to pay full and complete salary for the suspended period with further direction not to interfere in the working of the petitioner.

(ii) Passing any other order or direction, which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.

(iii) Cost of the petition may also be awarded to the petitioner."

2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is holding the

post of Panchayat Secretary. Vide order dated 23.01.2021, the

petitioner was suspended in accordance with M.P. Panchayat

Service (Conduct) Rules 1999. Thereafter show cause notice was

issued to the petitioner which was exhaustively replied by him.

On being satisfied with the reply, the respodnent No.2 has

imposed minor penalty upon the petitioner of withholding one

annual increment without cumulative effect with further direction

that the petitioner shall only be entitled for subsistence allowance

for the period of suspension.

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

that the respondent No.2 without holding any departmental

enquiry and assigning any reason as to why enquiry is not

necessary has passed the impugned order dated 28.06.2021

(Annexure P/1) thereby inflicting penalty of withholding one

increment without cumulative effect upon him with further

direction that for the suspended period petitioner will only entitled

for subsistence allowance. Against which, he filed several

representations but no heed is paid to it. 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.

4. 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.

5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and perused

the record.

6. 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. 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.

7. 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."

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

dated 28.06.2021 (Annexure P/1) is 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.

E-copy/Certified copy as per rules/directions.

(Milind Ramesh Phadke) Judge neetu NEETU SHASHAN K 2023.03.0 4 13:50:58 +05'30'