Madhya Pradesh High Court
Shyamlal Ochhane vs Home Department on 6 February, 2024
Author: Pranay Verma
Bench: Pranay Verma
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PRANAY VERMA
ON THE 6 th OF FEBRUARY, 2024
WRIT PETITION No. 13363 of 2020
BETWEEN:-
SHYAMLAL OCHHANE S/O SHRI MANNALAL OCHHANE,
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, OCCUPATION: SERVICE
GANGAUR GHAAT, BARWAHA, TEHSIL BARWAHA
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI L. C. PATNE - ADVOCATE)
AND
1. HOME DEPARTMENT PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
VALLABH BHAWAN MANTRALAYA BHOPAL
(MADHYA PRADESH)
2. ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE 76,
RESIDENCY AREA (MADHYA PRADESH)
3. DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE
MAHASHWETA NAGAR (MADHYA PRADESH)
4. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE DEWAS (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI SHREY RAJ SAXENA - DEPUTY ADVOCATE GENERAL)
This petition coming on for admission this day, th e court passed the
following:
ORDER
By this petition the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:
(a) to call for the relevant records of the case from the respondents.
(b) to command the respondents to make payment of full salary and
allowances by treating the period of suspension of the petitioner as on duty
for all purposes w.e.f.13.06.2015 to 06.12.2017 and to grant him all
consequential and monetary benefits and to release arrears there @ 12%
p.a., by a writ of MANDAMUS or any other appropriate writ, direction or
order;
(c) to allow this petition with costs;
(d) to pass such other order(s) as may be deemed appropriate in the
facts and circumstances of the case, to grant relief to the petitioner.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the issue involved in
this petition has already been decided by Division Bench of this Court in
Umashankar Choubey v. Union of India & Others [2006 (s) MPHT 471
(DB)]. It is further submitted that a Single Bench of this Court in Babulal Jhad
v. State of M.P. & Others [WP No.8658 of 2018, decided on 02.07.2018 ]
has also decided the said matter in the light of the decision in the case of
Umashankar Choubey (supra).
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that against the order
of acquittal of petitioner no appeal has been preferred by the State Government
before the appellate Court. There is nothing having been brought on record by
the respondents in this petition to controvert the said factual statement.
4. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the
record, it is noticed that undisputedly the trial of the petitioner in the criminal
case resulted into acquittal. The Division Bench of this court in the matter of
Umashankar Choubey (supra) taking note of para (d) of Administrative
Instructions contained in OM dated 28/3/1959 and F.R.54-B(3) has held that
where a government servant is deemed to be under suspension on account of
his detention exceeding 48 hours for a criminal charge and he is acquitted of the
charges and is reinstated without taking disciplinary proceedings against him, he
has to be paid full pay and allowances for the period of suspension. In the other
judgments in the matter of Dattatraya Vasudeo Kulkarni Vs. Director of
Agriculture, Maharashtra & others 1984 Mh.LJ 406, Brahma Chandra
Gupta Vs. Union of India (1984) 2 SCC 433, Lehna Singh Vs. State of
Haryana and another 1999 SCC Online P & H 1487, Ramsinhji Viraji 3
WP No.8658/2018 Rathod, Parmanand Society Vs. The State of Gujarat
and another 1970 SCC OnLine Guj 43 and Mohan Lal Vs. Union of
India & Others ILR (1981) II Delhi 1037 also it has been held that after
revocation of suspension if only minor penalty is imposed then on revocation of
suspension the employee concerned is entitled to the salary for the suspension
period. Counsel for petitioner has also placed reliance upon the subsequent
circular of the GAD No.F-6-3-77-3-1 dated 15/9/1977 and has submitted that
even in cases of termination on account of conviction by the trial court and
acquittal in appeal the direction is to treat the period on duty and pay the full
salary and allowance. In this regard, he has also placed reliance upon the
judgment of Jharkhand High Court in the matter of Prasenjit Ghosh Vs. State
of Jharkhand and others 2004 AIR Jhar 2134.
5. Having regard to the aforesaid factual and legal position, I am of the
opinion that the respondents are not justified in denying full salary to the
petitioner for the suspension period hence, the respondents are directed to pay
difference of salary and allowances to the petitioner for the period he had
remained under suspension. The necessary benefits be extended to the
petitioner within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified
copy of this order.
6. The writ petition is accordingly allowed and disposed off.
(PRANAY VERMA)
JUDGE
jyoti
