Madhya Pradesh High Court
Manish vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 1 April, 2024
Author: Vivek Rusia
Bench: Vivek Rusia
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK RUSIA
ON THE 1 st OF APRIL, 2024
WRIT PETITION No. 3455 of 2014
BETWEEN:-
MANISH S/O HEMANT BHAGWAT, AGED ABOUT 42
YEAR S, OCCUPATION: SERVICE 181, SHYAM NAGAR
ANNEXE (MR 10 CIRCLE) (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI RAHUL SETHI, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH PRINCIPAL
SECRETARY LABOUR DEPARTMENT VALLABH
BHAWAN BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. LABOUR COMMISSIONER GOVT. OF M.P.
DISTRICT INDORE M.P. MOTI BUNGLOW 518,
M.G.ROAD, DISTRICT INDORE M.P. (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI SUDHANSHU VYAS, PANEL LAWYER)
Th is petition coming on for hearing this day, th e court passed the
following:
ORDER
The petitioner has filed the present petition under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India being aggrieved by the order dated 09.04.2014, whereby
his representation for grant of arrears of salary during suspension period has
been rejected without assigning any reason.
02. The petitioner was placed under suspension on 05.05.2010,
thereafter, a charge-sheet dated 31.05.2010 was served to him. The petitioner
submitted a reply to the charge-sheet on 12.07.2010, which was found
unsatisfactory and punishment of censure was imposed on him and by the same
order dated 06.12.2013, suspension order was revoked.
03. The petitioner remained under suspension from 05.05.2010 to
06.12.2013 and during this period, he was paid subsistence allowances.
Therefore, after the order dated 06.12.2013, the petitioner demanded difference
of salary which came to be rejected vide order dated 09.04.2014. Hence, the
present petition is before this Court by placing reliance upon a judgment
delivered by this Court in the case of Y.S. Sachan v/s The State of Madhya
Pradesh & Others reported in 2004 (1) M.P.H.T. 22.
04. After notice, respondents filed a reply by submitting that as per FR
54-B, the competent authority is required to decide the period of suspension
and if it has not specifically granted the benefit, then same shall be treated as
rejected.
05. The petitioner filed a rejoinder relying on a Circular that when the
Departmental Enquiry ended into an acquittal or minor punishment, then the
delinquent shall be entitled for all benefits during the suspension period
including salary.
06. Similar issue came up for consideration before this Court in Writ
Petition No.13075 of 2018. Relevant part of the order is reproduced below:-
"5. The petitioner is at the verge of retirement therefore, he is not
challenging the punishment given to him, but he is aggrieved only by
order passed under Section 54(5) F.R. Rule by which he has been
denied full salary and allowances payable during period of suspension.
As per F.R. 54(B) when a Government servant who has been
suspended is reinstated the authority competent to order
reinstatement shall consider and make a specific order regarding pay
and allowances to be paid to him for the period of suspension ending
with reinstatement. According to Sub Rule (3) where the authority
competent to order reinstatement is of the opinion that the suspension
is wholly unjustified, the Government Servant shall be subject to the
provision of the Sub Rule 8 be paid full pay and allowances to which
he would have been entitled had he not been suspended. As per Sub
Rule 5, if the Government servant is not found entitled for the full
amount of pay and allowances payable during the suspension period
the Competent Authority may determine any amount after giving
notice to the Government servant by proposing the quantum payable to
him. It is not in dispute that the period of suspension is liable to be
treated into the service. In the present case, before passing the
impugned order, the petitioner was not given any opportunity to give
the representation and the competent authority has decided not to pay
the full pay and the allowances to him. This court in the case of Deena
Nath Tiwari V/s. Dr. Hari Singh Gour Vishwavidyalaya, Sagar
(supra) and in the case of Y.S. Sachan V/s. State of M.P. & Ors.
(supra) has held that withholding of two increments as a minor
penalty and in case of imposition of such penalty, the employee is not
to be a deprived of his salary for the period of suspension as that
become more penal than the penalty, which has been imposed. No
reasons have been assigned for depriving him of his salary for the
suspension period. The suspension can be said to be wholly
unjustified in terms of F.R. 54-B and the concerned employee should
be paid full pay and allowance for the period of suspension by passing
a suitable order under F.R.54-B. The guidelines issued by the Central
Government for its employees are just and reasonable and should be
followed by the State Government in its instrumentality. In the State
of M.P, the General Administration Department has also issued a
circular dated 13.1.2005 to the same effect that if the suspended
employee is imposed a minor penalty after the conclusion of the
departmental enquiry, then the suspension was not warranted and the
State Government has taken a decision to give full pay and salary and
allowances for the suspension period.
6. In view of the above, the petition succeeds and is hereby allowed in
part. The order dated 27.12.2017 is quashed, so far it relates to the
denial of full salary and allowances payable during the period of
suspension. The respondents are directed to pay the full salary and
other allowances admissible to the petitioner during the suspension
period from 14.9.2017 to 27.12.2017."
07. In this case, the impugned order is unsustainable on two grounds;
firstly that it is a non-speaking order as no reason has been assigned while
rejecting the representation, and secondly the petitioner has been imposed
punishment of censure which is a minor punishment, it means that even
suspension was not warranted that too for three years as the charges were not
so grave and even though found proved against the petitioner.
08. In view of the above, impugned order dated 09.04.2014 is hereby set
aside. The petitioner shall be entitled for difference of salary from 05.05.2010 till
06.12.2013 within a period of three months from today along with interest @
6% per annum, if not paid to the petitioner within three months. The case of the
petitioner for grant of Kramonnati be also considered as per the Policy of the
State Government.
09. With the aforesaid, Writ Petition stands allowed.
(VIVEK RUSIA)
JUDGE
Ravi
