Madhya Pradesh High Court
Smt. Manju Saxena vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh Kisan Kalyan ... on 22 November, 2023
Author: Milind Ramesh Phadke
Bench: Milind Ramesh Phadke
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MILIND RAMESH PHADKE
ON THE 22 nd OF NOVEMBER, 2023
WRIT PETITION No. 2989 of 2015
BETWEEN:-
SMT. MANJU SAXENA W/O SHRI SURESH CHANDRA
SAXENA, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
RETIRED R/O 558B TIKONIA PARK THATIPUR
GWALIOR (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI SURESH AGRAWAL- ADVOCATE )
AND
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH
PRINCIPAL /ADDITIONAL SECRETARY, KISAN
KALYAN AND AGRICULTURE DEPARTMENT,
MANTRALAYA VALLABH BHAWAN BHOPAL
(MADHYA PRADESH)
2. MADHYA PRADESH RAJYA BEEJ EVAM FARM
VIKAS NIGAM BEEJ BHAWAN, 36, MOTHER
TERESA MARG, ARERA, HILLS BHOPAL (MADHYA
PRADESH) THROUGH MANAGING DIRECTOR
3. REGIONAL MANAGER REGIONAL OFFICE,
MADHYA PRADESH RAJYA BEEJ EVAM FARM
VIKAS NIGAM MOTI MAHAL (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI S.S.KUSHWAH- GOVT. ADVOCATE FOR THE STATE
NONE FOR RESPONDENT NO.3)
Th is petition coming on for hearing this day, th e court passed the
following:
SOODAN PRASAD The present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has
been preferred seeking following reliefs:
" i . The respondents authorities may kindly be directed to
release the salary and other benefits (difference of salary i.e.
from 7.8.2023 to 9.1.2014 suspension period) to the petitioner
within stipulated time. And also quash the part of the order
dated 22.1.2015 by which service benefits were forfeited by
the respondent No.1.
ii The, respondent No.1 be directed to decide the appeal of the
petitioner which is pending for consideration last more then
two years against the order dated 21.01.2013.
iii The any other relief which this Hon'ble Court may think
proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may also be
granted. "
2.It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner was
suspended on 7.8.2013 and vide order dated 20.8.2013 a charge-sheet was
issued against the petitioner. Thereafter a departmental enquiry under Section 14
of the M.P. Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966 was
initiated. After enquiry, respondent No.2 passed an order on 10.1.2014
terminating the services of the petitioner and retiring him compulsorily. It was
further contended that against the said order, petitioner preferred an appeal
before respondent No.1 in which vide order dated 22.1.2015 respondent No.1
quashed the order dated 10.1.2014, but forfeited the service benefits from the
date of termination i.e. 10.1.2014 till the date of his superannuation
i.e.31.7.2014.
3.It was further contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that vide
impugned order Annexure P/1 dated 22nd January, 2015 respondent No.1
found that looking to the allegations levelled against the petitioner, the penalty
appears to be excessive and set aside the order dated 10.1.2014, but directed
that petitioner would not be entitled for the service benefits from 10.1.2014 to
31.7.2014. Learned counsel further submitted that this part of the impugned
order is against the settled principle of law and deserves to be set aside. To
bolster his submission, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on
the judgment in the case of Y.S.Sachan Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh &
Ors, 2004(1) MPHT 22. On the basis of aforesaid, learned counsel submits
that petition be allowed and service benefits for the suspension period may be
granted in favour of the petitioner.
4.Per contra, learned counsel for the State has submitted that during the
suspension period petitioner has not performed any work, and therefore, on the
basis of no work no pay, he is not entitled for any service benefits and thus no
interference is required to be made in the impugned order and accordingly
prayed for dismissal of the petition.
5.Heard learned counsel for the parties 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
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
has 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 has been set aside
vide impugned order, stoppage of salary and other benefits for the period under
Signature Notsuspension
Verified is not justified.
Signed by: MADHU
SOODAN PRASAD
Signing time: 23-11-2023 7.This Court in the matter of Y.S. Sachan (supra) in para 8 has held as
10:37:34 AM
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 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 order to the extent
that petitioner is not entitled for the service benefits for the suspension period
from 10.1.2014 to 31.7.2014 is set aside. The respondents are directed to pay
full salary to the petitioner for the suspension period within a period of 2
months from the date of receiving certified copy of the order.
(MILIND RAMESH PHADKE)
JUDGE
ms/-
