Madhya Pradesh High Court
B.M. Soni vs School Education Department on 12 September, 2023
Author: Subodh Abhyankar
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SUBODH ABHYANKAR
ON THE 12 th OF SEPTEMBER, 2023
WRIT PETITION No. 15719 of 2022
BETWEEN:-
B.M. SONI S/O LATE SHRI MANGILAL SONI, AGED
ABOUT 65 YEARS, OCCUPATION: RETIRED HOUSE NO.
122 BADA BAZAR NEAR GAYATRI TEMPLE RADHA
BHAWAN NARSINGHGARH (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI L. C. PATNE - ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER)
AND
1. SCHOOL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT THROUGH
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY VALLABH BHAWAN
MANTRALAYA BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. THE DISTRICT EDUCATION OFFICER RAJGARH
(BIORA) (MADHYA PRADESH)
3. THE PRINCIPAL GOVERNMENT HIGHER
SECONDARY SCHOOL PIPLIYA KULMI (MADHYA
PRADESH)
4. THE DISTRICT PENSION OFFICER DISTRICT
RAJGARH (BIAORA) (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
( BY MS BHAGYASHREE GUPTA - GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR THE
RESPONDENTS STTE)
This petition coming on for admission this day, th e court passed the
following:
ORDER
This petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
seeking the following reliefs :-
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RASHMI
PRASHANT
Signing time: 14-09-2023
11:29:23
"(a) to call for the relevant records of the case from the
respondents;.
(b) to command the respondents to revise the pay of the
petitioner a per recommendations of 6% CPC w.e.f. 1.1.2006 and as
per recommendations of 7' CPC w.e.f. 1.1.2016 and to refix the pay
of 'the petitioner and to release arrears thereof alongwith interest @
12% p.a., by a writ of MANDAMUS or any other appropriate writ,
direction or order: |
(c) to command the Respondents to payment of full salary and
"allowances to the petitioner for the month of January, 1998 to
January, 2006 and to refix the pay of the petitioner and to release
arrears thereof alongwith interest @ 12% p.a., by a writ of
MANDAMUS or any other appropriate writ, direction or order;
(d) to command the Respondents to grant the petitioner his
due promotion, financial upgradations including grant of first, second
and third time scale of pay and to refix the pay of the petitioner and
to release arrears thereof alongwith interest @ 12% p.a., by a writ
Lot MANDAMUS or any other appropriate writ, direction or order;
(e) to command the Respondents to release full pension and
gratuity to the petitioner on the basis of his last drawn salary to be
arrived at after granting him his due service benefits as mentioned in
para 7(b) to (d) above and to release arrears thereof alongwith
interest @ 12% p.a., by a writ of MANDAMUS or any other
appropriate writ, direction or order;
(f) to allow this petition with costs;
(g) 'to pass such other order(s) as may be deemed
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RASHMI
PRASHANT
Signing time: 14-09-2023
11:29:23
appropriate in the facts and circumstances of the case, to grant relief
to the petitioner."
2. Grievance of the petitioner is that after his acquittal at Crime No 214
of 1996 by JMFC Biaora, District Rajgarh on 16.05.2005 he has not been given
the benefit of 5th pay commission, 6th pay commission and other financial up-
gradation.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that it is true
that appeal has been preferred by the State bearing Criminal Appeal No. 999 of
2005, but the same is still not decided and it has already been held by Division
Bench of this Court in the case of Ram Ratan Tiwari Vs. State of M.P. and
others reported in 2002 (4) MPLJ 401. Thus it is submitted that the aforesaid
benefit be directed to be extended to the petitioner.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also relied upon the decision
rendered by this Court in Writ Petition No. 17499 of 2022 dated 16.09.2022 in
the case of Smt Pragya Jain Vs. School Education Department.
5. On the other hand, counsel for the respondents has opposed the
prayer.
6. Having considered the rival submissions and on perusal of documents
on record as well as the decision passed by this court in the case of Smt
Pragya (supra), this Court has made the following observations, which reads
as under :-
"On due consideration of the aforesaid submissions and on
perusal of the documents filed on record, it is found that so far as
the decision rendered by the Division Bench of this Court in the case
of Ram Ratan Tiwari (supra) is concerned, the relevant para 7 & 8
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RASHMI
PRASHANT
Signing time: 14-09-2023
11:29:23
are reads as under:-
"7. The matter was adjourned to enable Counsel for parties to
find out whether any other decision deals with the subject. No other
decision except Surendra Kumar's case (supra) is brought to our
notice. Therefore, we proceed to examine the matter on the available
facts and status of legal position. Rule 9(1)(b) of Madhya Pradesh
Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966
provides that:--
"Where a case against him in respect of any criminal offence is
under investigation, enquiry or trial."
Therefore, a person can be placed under suspension. One of
the circumstances for placing the Government servant under
suspension is when a case against him in respect of any criminal
offence is under investigation, inquiry or trial. Part IV of Madhya
Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules,
1966, deals with suspension. Rule 9(1) provides for circumstances
when a person can be placed under suspension by the Government.
Petitioner was placed under suspension under the above quoted
Rules which means he remains under suspension when criminal
offence against him is under investigation, enquiry or trial.
Investigation, enquiry or trial is over after announcement of judgment
dated April 30, 2001.
Therefore, this provision stands exhausted and petitioner can
revert back to service. To hold otherwise would mean reading
something in the provision which it does not provide. Further it may
cause immense hardship to person to wait for the final adjudication
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RASHMI
PRASHANT
Signing time: 14-09-2023
11:29:23
of the matter by the Final Court. Therefore, submission of Shri P.D.
Gupta, learned Dy. Advocate General cannot be appreciated to the
extent that once a person is placed under suspension, he continues
under suspension during the appeal as well. We find ourselves in
agreement with the decision of High Court of Himachal Pradesh in
Surendra Kumar's case (supra) being nearest to the point involved in
this case rather deciding the same question and also that preferment
of appeal is not continuance of the trial.
8. Therefore, what emerges out of the aforesaid discussion is
that the Tribunal has not considered the matter in right perspective,
therefore, order dated 17-1- 2002 is set aside. The petitioner shall be
taken back into service and allowed benefits available to him in
accordance with law."
(emphasis supplied)
In view of the aforesaid decision of the Division Bench of this
Court and in the light of the fact that the petitioner has already been
acquitted from all the charges levelled against her vide judgment
dated 4.2.2022, the impugned order cannot be sustained and hence,
the order dated 21.3.2016 (Annexure P/1) is hereby quashed. The
respondents are directed to allow the petitioner to perform her
regular services with all consequential benefits available to her in
accordance with law.
Certified copy, as per rules."
7. In view of the aforesaid, this Court is of the considered
opinion that there was legal impairment in granting relief to the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RASHMI
PRASHANT
Signing time: 14-09-2023
11:29:23
petitioner. In view of the same, the petition stands allowed in terms
of the relief sought and if the petitioner is found entitled to the relief
claimed, the same shall be provided to him further within a period of
two months, from the date of passing of this order.
With the aforesaid the petition stands disposed off.
(SUBODH ABHYANKAR)
JUDGE
rashmi
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: RASHMI
PRASHANT
Signing time: 14-09-2023
11:29:23
