Madhya Pradesh High Court
Alok Kulshrestha vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 8 May, 2024
Author: Sanjay Dwivedi
Bench: Sanjay Dwivedi
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SANJAY DWIVEDI
ON THE 8 th OF MAY, 2024
WRIT PETITION No. 9799 of 2019
BETWEEN:-
ALOK KULSHRESTHA S/O DR. S. K. KULSHRESTHA,
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, OCCUPATION: ASSISTANT GEO
HYDROLOGIST R/O F-83/49 TULSI NAGAR (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI GOURAV MAHESHWARI - ADVOCATE)
AND
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THR. ITS PRINCIPAL
SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES
MANTRALAYA VALLABH BHAWAN BHOPAL (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENT
(BY SHRI GIRISH KEKRE - GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE)
This petition coming on for admission this day, th e court passed the
following:
ORDER
Pleadings are complete. Parties agreed to argue the matter finally.
Accordingly, it is finally heard.
2. Counsel for the petitioner by the instant petition filed under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India is assailing the order dated 05.03.2019 (Annexure P/1)
whereby the claim of the petitioner with regard to grant of full benefit of pay,
perks and salary during the suspension period was rejected by the respondents.
3. As per the facts of the case, a departmental enquiry was initiated against
the petitioner and a charge-sheet was issued to him and finally, a minor
punishment was inflicted upon him i.e. withholding of one increment with non-
cumulative effect.
4. Counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is assailing the order
mainly on the ground that it the settled principle of law that when charge-sheet is
issued to the employee and regular departmental enquiry is conducted which
culminated into a minor punishment then employee is held entitled to get full
salary, wages and other benefits for the period of suspension as if he was never
placed under suspension.
5. The respondents have filed their reply taking a stand therein that
departmental enquiry was conducted and petitioner was placed under
suspension but as per Fundamental Rule 54-B (7), the petitioner is not entitled
to get full salary of the suspension period.
6. I have heard the arguments advanced by learned counsel for parties and
perused the record.
7. The Division Bench of this Court in a case reported in 2019 SCC OnLine
MP 7010 (K.K. Bajpai Vs. Union of India and others) relying upon the
cases reported in (2004) 1 M.P.L.J. 48 (Deena Nath Tiwari Vs. Dr. Hari
Singh Gour Vishwavidyalaya, Sagar); (2012) 2 M.P.L.J. 347 (Prakash
Kumar Sahu Vs. Union of India) has observed as under:-
'24. This O.M. was considered by this court in Deena
Nath Tiwari v. Dr. Hari Singh Gour Viskwavidyalaya,
Sagar - (2004) 1 MP LJ 48. This court opined that where
departmental proceedings against a suspended employee
for imposition of a major penalty finally ends with the
imposition of minor penalty, the intervening period must
be treated as spent on duty. It must be remembered that in
the instant case, the original punishment of compulsory
retirement was set aside by the tribunal and respondent
could not complete the inquiry despite liberty reserved to
them. The petitioner cannot be said to be at fault for this.
A division Bench of this court in Prakash Kumar Sahu v.
Union of India - (2012) 2 MP LJ 347 opined that in view
of pension rules, specific order is required to be passed
treating the intervening period as break in service, the non
duty period cannot be excluded from counting the said
period of suspension for the purpose of qualifying service
and payment of pension.'
Likewise, in a case reported in 2019 SCC OnLine MP 5758 Narsingh
Dokhe Vs. Chief Executive Officer, the coordinate Bench has observed as
under:-
'4. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal
of the record, it is noticed that the criminal case against the petitioner
has ended in discharge and the departmental enquiry has also ended
in warning without imposing any major punishment. This Court in the
matter of Prakash Chandra Choubey v. Farmer Welfare and
Agriculture Department reported in 2016 SCC OnLine MP 9472
considering the similar issue when after the departmental enquiry
minor punishment was imposed and taking note of the earlier
judgment in the matter of Y.S. Sachan v. State of M.P. reported in
2004 (1) MPHT 22 and the Division Bench judgment in the matter of
State of M.P. v. Shailendra reported in ILR 2011 MP 2315 has held
as under:--
'7. The similar issue has also been examined by this court in the
matter of Y.S. Sachan v. State of Madhya Pradesh reported in
2004 (1) MPHT 22 wherein it has been held as 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 saddled 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
9. The petition is partly allowed. It is dismissed
against that part of the impugned order by which the
penalty of withholding of one increment has been
imposed upon the petitioner. The respondents are
directed to pay full salary of the petitioner for the
suspension period within two months'
8. The division bench also in the matter of State of MP v.
Shailendra reported in ILR 2011 MP 2315 in a case where the charge
sheet for major mis-conduct was issued but minor penalty was
imposed has held the employee concerned entitled for full salary in
view of the circular dated 13/1/2005.
9. Keeping in view the aforesaid circumstances of the case, the
impugned order dated 3/3/2014 to the extent it denies the full salary
and allowances to the petitioner during the suspension period cannot
be sustained and is hereby set aside by holding that the petitioner is
entitled to the full salary and allowance during the suspension period
and the respondents are directed to pay the difference of salary and
allowance within a period of three months.'
5. Since the aforesaid judgment is squarely applicable in the case
of the present petitioner, therefore, the present petition is also
allowed and the impugned order dated 7.1.2019 so far as it relates to
applicability of principle of No Work No Pay is set aside and the
respondents are directed to pay salary to the petitioner for the period
of suspension within a period of two months from the date of receipt
of certified copy of this order.
7. In view of the aforesaid, the petition is partly allowed, modifying the
order passed by the authority on 09.11.2016 whereby the petitioner was
deprived to get the benefits of full salary and other allowances for the period
when he remained suspended to the extent that petitioner shall be paid the
benefits of full salary and other allowance for the period when he remained
under suspension treating the said period as if petitioner was never placed under
suspension.
8. With the aforesaid, the petition stands partly allowed.
(SANJAY DWIVEDI)
JUDGE
rao
