Madhya Pradesh High Court
Dr. Rajkumar Dubey vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 7 August, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:17019
1 WP-17695-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ASHISH SHROTI
ON THE 7 th OF AUGUST, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 17695 of 2025
DR. RAJKUMAR DUBEY
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Girija Shankar Sharma - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri K.K. Prajapati- Govt. Advocate for the respondents/State.
ORDER
The petitioner has filed this writ petition praying for a direction to the
respondents to pay him the full pay and allowances for the period of suspension
from 23.03.2015 to 14.12.2016 together with interest.
[2]. The facts as gathered from the records of the case are that the petitioner
was working as Medical Officer at Bhind. He has retired from service on attaining
the age of superannuation w.e.f. 31.10.2023. He got involved in a criminal case
for offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B of IPC and
Section 65, 66 of IT Act and Section 3(घ), 2/4 of Examination Act. On account of
his involvement in the criminal case, the petitioner was placed under suspension
on 23.03.2015. The suspension was later on revoked vide order, dated 14.12.2016
(Annexure P/4). Regarding regularization of the period of suspension, it is stated
in the order that the period of suspension shall be regularized after the decision in
the criminal case.
[3]. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has
already retired from service on 31.10.2023. Neither there is any allegation of
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:17019
2 WP-17695-2025
misconduct on the part of petitioner nor the Department is concerned with the
criminal case. He submitted that the petitioner is entitled to payment of full pay
and allowances for the period of suspension. He also submitted that there are many
as 582 accused persons in the criminal case and the decision in the criminal case
made it sufficiently long time and, therefore, in the fitness of things, his period of
suspension needs to be regularized.
[4]. Learned counsel for the respondents on advance notice submitted that
the petitioner can be paid pay and allowances for the period of suspension only
when the suspension is held to be unjustified. Since the petitioner's suspension
was on account of his involvement in the criminal case, such a finding cannot be
recorded unless the criminal case is decided. He thus submitted that the
respondents are justified in not regularizing the period of suspension of the
petitioner.
[5]. Considered the arguments and perused the record.
[6]. F.R. 54-B deals with the suspension as also the regularization of period
of suspension. F.R. 54-B(6) reads as under;
"(6) Where suspension is revoked pending finalisation of the
disciplinary or court proceedings, any order passed under sub-rule
(1) before the conclusion of the proceedings, against the
Government servant, shall be reviewed on its own motion after
the conclusion of the proceedings by the authority mentioned in
sub-rule (1) who shall make an order according to the provisions
of sub-rule (3) or sub-rule (5) as the case may be."
[7]. Thus, reading the provisions of sub-rule 6 alongwith sub-rule (3) & (5)
of FR 54-B, it is evident that the period of suspension is required to be regularized
based upon the conclusion of criminal case. The respondents are, therefore,
justified in stating in the order, dated 14.12.2016, that the period of suspension of
the petitioner shall be regularized after the decision of the criminal case. Unless it
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:17019
3 WP-17695-2025
is held that the suspension of the petitioner was wholly unjustified, he cannot be
paid pay and allowances for the said period. Further so long as the criminal case is
not decided, the finding that the suspension was unjustified, cannot be rendered.
[ 8 ] . In view of the aforesaid, the action of the respondents in not
regularizing the period of suspension awaiting the decision of criminal case cannot
be said to be illegal.
[9]. Counsel for the petitioner placed reliance upon the Division Bench
judgment of this Court in the case of P.S. Deo Vs. State of M.P. & Anr. reported
in 2005 (2) MPLJ 238. This judgment is of no help to the petitioner inasmuch as
the said judgment deals with the situation after when the punishment of
compulsory retirement was set-aside by the Appellate Authority. Treating the
period as period spent on admissible leave. The facts of the present case are,
however, entirely different wherein the suspension of the petitioner was on
account of his involvement in the criminal case.
[10]. In view of the discussion made above, no ground is made out for
interference by this Court. The petition is accordingly, dismissed in limine.
(ASHISH SHROTI)
JUDGE
vpn/-
