Madhya Pradesh High Court
Suresh Kumar Gupta vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 28 May, 2024
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK JAIN
ON THE 28 th OF MAY, 2024
WRIT PETITION No. 14627 of 2024
BETWEEN:-
SURESH KUMAR GUPTA S/O LATE SITARAM GUPTA,
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, OCCUPATION: RETIRED
KANISHTHA UTPADAK SAHAYAK REGIONAL OFFICE
BEEJ NIGAM NAGOD BEJ VIKRAYA KENDRA SATNA
DISTRICT SATNA (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI PAWAN KUMAR SINGH - ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY KISSAN KALYAN TATHA
KRISHI VIKAS VIBHAG VALLABH BHAWAN
BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. KSHETRIYA PRABANDHAK M.P. RAJYA BEEJ
AVAM FARM VIKASH NIGAM VIBHAG VALLABH
BHAWAN, BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
3. PRABANDH SANCHALAK M.P. RAJYA BEEJ AVAM
FARM VIKASH NIGAM VIBHAG VALLABH
BHAWAN, BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
4. REGIONAL MANAGER M.P. RAJYA BEEJ AVAM
FARM VIKASH NIGAM VIBHAG KENDRA SATNA
DISTRICT SATNA (M.P.) (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI DARSHAN SONI - GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE)
This petition coming on for admission this day, th e court passed the
following:
ORDER
This petition has been filed seeking the following reliefs:-
"(i) A writ in the nature of mandamus may kindly be issued
and to call entire service record of the petitioner from the
respondents.
(ii) A writ in nature of mandamus may kindly be issued and
to direct the respondents to give entire arrears of salary as
well as increment of his suspension period along with all
consequential benefits along with interest @ 18% per
annum for proposed delayed payment to the petitioner
within a time bound frame, in the interest of justice.
(iii) Or in alternative and without prejudice, a writ in the
nature of mandamus may kindly be issued and to direct
respondents to consider and decide the representation of
the petitioner contained in Annexure P-8 by a speaking and
reasoned order within a time bound frame.
(iv) Any other writ, order or direction, which this Hon'ble
Court deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances
of the case, may also kindly be passed, in the interest of
justice.
2. It is stated by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was
subjected to criminal trial, which was initiated in the year 1994 and ultimately, he
was acquitted of charges under Sections 409 and 420 of I.P.C. by final
judgment dated 16.11.2021 passed by J.M.F.C., Satna vide Annexure P-7. It is
contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that in the same matter, the
petitioner had been suspended and now after culmination of criminal trial, the
department is required to take action in respect of pending dues of the
petitioner.
3. Upon hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and on perusal of
the documents placed on record, it is seen that the petitioner has suffered
criminal trial in which he has been acquitted of charges vide judgment Annexure
P-7. The charges in the said cases related to defalcation and misappropriation
of funds of the employer during the course of employment. The documents
placed on record further show that the petitioner was suspended on 18.08.2005
and suspension was revoked on 18.03.2010. Later on, the petitioner was
terminated from service vide order dated 20.05.2013, though the termination
order has not been placed on record.
4. The termination order has been referred in Annexure P-3 dated
24.01.2014, but since the termination order itself is not on record, it cannot be
ascertained at this stage whether the criminal charges and the departmental
action was on same set of charges or not.
5 . At this stage, learned counsel for petitioner submits that he has
submitted detailed representations, which are placed on record collectively as
Annexure P-8. In the said representations, the petitioner has stated his claim to
various dues like deductions made from salary, dues of pay fixation, gratuity,
etc.
6. Looking to the documents placed on record and innocuous prayer
being made to direct the respondents to take up and decide the pending
representations Annexure P-8 submitted by the petitioner, this petition is
disposed of directing the respondents to take up and decide the
representations Annexure P-8 (if not already decided) expeditiously and not
later than three months from the date of production of certified copy of this
order.
7. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the
entitlement of the petitioner to the dues so claimed by way of representation.
The authorities shall dwell upon the representation strictly in accordance with
law as per service conditions of the petitioner and take decision accordingly.
(VIVEK JAIN)
JUDGE
rj
