Director General vs P.K. Shrivastava on 3 December, 2025

Author: Vivek Rusia

Bench: Vivek Rusia

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:62814

1 WP-15815-2012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK RUSIA
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PRADEEP MITTAL
ON THE 03rd OF DECEMBER, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 15815 of 2012
DIRECTOR GENERAL AND OTHERS
Versus
P.K. SHRIVASTAVA AND OTHERS
Appearance:

Shri Vikram Johri - Advocate for the petitioner.

Shri Piyush Bhatnagar - Assistant Solicitor General of India for
respondent No.2.

Respondent-P.K. Shrivastav appeared in person.

WITH
WRIT PETITION No. 426 of 2014
DIRECTOR GENERAL AND OTHERS
Versus
P.K. SHRIVASTAVA AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Vikram Johri - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Piyush Bhatnagar - Assistant Solicitor General of India for
respondent No.2.
Respondent-P.K. Shrivastav appeared in person.
ORDER

Per: Justice Vivek Rusia

With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, matters are heard

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:62814

2 WP-15815-2012 finally.

The petitioners (Director General, Indian Council of Medical Research and one another) have filed Writ Petition No.15815/2012 under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 16.5.2012 whereby Original Application No.804/2010 [ P.K.Shrivastava Vs. UOI & others ] was allowed in part. These petitioners also filed another writ petition (Writ Petition No.626/2014) against the order dated 04.10.2013, whereby O.A.No.336/2010 [P.K.Shrivastava Vs. UOI & others] has been allowed, and respondents therein have been directed to consider the effect of a minor penalty.

2. Facts of the case, in short, are as under:-

The respondent No.1 (hereinafter referred to as the "applicant") was initially appointed to the post of Lower Division Clerk on a PEM Project in the Medical College, Jabalpur, under the Indian Medical Council of Medical Research [for short "ICMR"]. He continued on the said post up to 21.1.1985. Thereafter, he resigned from the aforesaid project and joined the establishment of the Regional Medical Research Centre on 22.1.1985. He was served with a charge-sheet dated 10.4.1991, levelling as many as four charges. He submitted a reply to the charge-sheet, and thereafter the Inquiry Officer was appointed, who submitted an inquiry report finding that three charges were proved and the fourth charge was not proved. The Disciplinary Authority agreed with the findings of the enquiry report and imposed punishment of removal from service vide order dated 24.7.1992. Thereafter,

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:62814

3 WP-15815-2012

the applicant preferred an appeal, and the same was dismissed by the appellate authority.

3. The applicant approached this Court by way of M.P.No.2536/1992, which was transferred to the Central Administrative Tribunal (for brevity the "Tribunal"), after the ICMR was notified under section 14 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985. The same was registered before the Tribunal as T.A.No.03/2000. The Tribunal came to the conclusion that two charges had been rightly proved against the applicant, and those two charges were not so grave as to impose the penalty of removal from service. Hence, the Tribunal remanded the matter back to the appellate authority of ICMR to reconsider the appeal and pass an appropriate order regarding the quantum of punishment. The applicant filed a review application, being R.A.No.81/2000 [Pawan Kumar Shrivastava Vs. Director, Regional Medical Research Centre and others, but meanwhile, the appellate authority vide order dated 19.12.2000 reduced the punishment from quantum of penalty of removal from service to stoppage of increments for a period of six years and also treated the period of absence of the applicant from the date of termination i.e. 24.7.1992, till the date of reinstatement as dies non . Upon this development, the review application came to be dismissed on 05.10.2001.

4. Being aggrieved by the order dated 19.12.2000 passed by the

appellate authority, the applicant filed an original application (O.A.No.698/2001) before the Tribunal. Vide order dated 20.9.2002, the

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:62814

4 WP-15815-2012 Tribunal declined to interfere in respect of punishment but granted liberty to the applicant to submit a detailed representation regarding his activities during the intervening period from the date of removal from service till the date of reinstatement for the purpose of regularisation of the period which has been declared as dies non .

5. In compliance with the aforesaid order, the competent authority again gave the applicant an opportunity of hearing and passed an order dated 27.2.2003, whereby it maintained the period during which the applicant was not in service as dies non . The applicant did not challenge the order dated 27.2.2003 before the Tribunal; however, he submitted a representation to the petitioner No.1 against the order dated 27.2.2003. Thereafter, the applicant again submitted a representation on 20.9.2007 i.e. after a period of four years. However, the same was rejected by the petitioner No.1 vide order dated 24.6.2008. The applicant again did not challenge the order dated 24.6.2008 but repeated making of representation to the petitioner No.1 on 18.7.2008, which came to be rejected on 02.2.2010. Thereafter, the applicant approached the Tribunal by way of O.A.No.804/2010. It is stated that once the representation's final order has been passed on 27.2.2003 in compliance of the order of the Tribunal dated 20.9.2002, the period of limitation cannot be extended merely by submitting the representation again and again. So, Original Application No.804/2010 has been filed before the Tribunal challenging the order dated 27.2.2003 after a lapse of 07 years from the period prescribed for limitation under section 21 of the Administrative Tribunals Act.

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:62814

5 WP-15815-2012

6. The respondent/ICMR filed a reply and raised an objection with regard to the delay and latches. However, the Tribunal vide order dated 16.05.2012 has quashed the order dated 27.02.2003 and directed the respondent No.2 therein to reconsider and decide the representation dated 20.05.2003. The learned Tribunal has also held that there is no provision under Fundamental Rule 54 to declare the period as 'dies-non', therefore, the order dated 27.02.2003 is unsustainable in law. The learned Tribunal treated the original application to be within limitation as the applicant challenged the validity order of rejection dated 25.06.2008 and the letter dated 02.02.2010. Hence, this petition was filed by the petitioners before this Court.

7. The petitioners filed W.P.No.426/2014 challenging the order dated 04.10.2013 passed in O.A.No.336/2010 whereby the original application has been allowed. The applicant also filed an Original Application No.336/2010 before the Tribunal challenging the order dated 25.06.2008, whereby the representation of the petitioner dated 20.09.2007 was rejected.

8. During the pendency of the aforesaid proceedings, the applicant also submitted a representation seeking the regularisation of his suspension period. The said representation was forwarded by the Administrative Officer to the Director General. Thereafter, the applicant submitted reminders and a detailed representation claiming various reliefs i.e. clarification of reinstatement order, allowing annual grade increments, regularisation of period of suspension i.e., from 11.04.1991 to 24.07.1992, regularisation of

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:62814

6 WP-15815-2012 period of service from removal to reinstatement i.e. from 24.07.1992 to 09.10.2002, promotion and granting of past service benefits, etc. Vide order dated 24.06.2008, the Assistant Director General of ICMR has rejected the representation. Thereafter, the applicant filed an application on 18.07.2008 seeking review of the order dated 24.06.2008, whereby his representation was rejected. The said review came to be dismissed vide order dated 25.02.2009. Thereafter, the applicant again submitted a representation on 10.12.2009, which too has been dismissed by order dated 02.02.2010. Thereafter, the applicant approached the Tribunal by filing an original application (OA No.336/2010). The said original application was opposed by the petitioner by filing a reply. Vide order dated 04.10.2013, the Tribunal decided the original application and remanded the matter back to the ICMR (respondent therein) to reconsider and decide the matter regarding the period of suspension 11.4.1991 to 24.7.1992, as the applicant was imposed with the minor penalty vide order dated 19.12.2000, subject to final outcome of W.P.No.15815/2012. It is also observed that in the case of regularisation of the period of suspension as per sub-rules (3) & (4) of Fundamental Rule 54- B, the applicant shall be entitled to get all the consequential benefits, including back wages. The petitioners have challenged the aforesaid order by way of WP No.426/2014.

9. Since the issues involved in both the writ petitions are inter-

linked, therefore, both the petitions have been heard analogously.

10. On 31.5.1990, an FIR was registered against the applicant at

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:62814

7 WP-15815-2012 Crime No.339/90 for offences under sections 323, 325/34, 294 of IPC. He was tried for offences under sections 294 & 325 of the IPC by the JMFC. Upon registration of Criminal Case vide order dated 11.4.1991, he was placed under suspension by the Director of the Regional Medical Research Centre for Tribals. Vide judgment dated 22.12.1993, he was acquitted by the JMFC, Jabalpur. Meanwhile, he was served with a charge sheet, and thereafter, departmental proceedings were initiated. Therefore, vide order 13.2.1992, his suspension was continued till termination of all such proceedings. In compliance of the order passed by the Tribunal dated 11.10.2000, the Director General and Appellate Authority reduced the penalty from removal from service under Rule 11(viii) to the imposition of a penalty of stoppage of annual increments for a period of 06 years from the date he is re-instated as UDC under Rule 11(v) of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965. The period of absence, i.e. from 24.7.1992 till the date of reinstatement, was treated as 'dies non'.

11. Therefore, the only claims of the applicant which remain for adjudication are regarding regularisation of suspension period, i.e. from 11.4.1991 to 24.7.1992 and regularisation of service from removal to reinstatement, i.e. 24.7.1992 to 09.10.2002. It is submitted by him that if the punishment of stoppage of increment is treated as be minor punishment under Rule 11(v) of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, then the aforesaid periods cannot be treated as dies non , which is a major penalty, hence he is entitled to regularisation of the said period under FR 54(b).

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:62814

8 WP-15815-2012

12. Respondent/applicant submits that he has been granted six annual increments, which were withheld and stopped for a period of 06 years. The Tribunal in the original application has held that the applicant was imposed a minor penalty under Rule 11(iv) of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965. Therefore, the absence of the applicant from 24.7.1992 to the date of reinstatement is liable to be decided under F.R.54(b).

13. So far as the issue of limitation is concerned, it is admitted that the order dated 24.7.2003 became final, but the respondent/applicant submitted a representation and approached the Tribunal by way of filing Original Application No.804/2010. The said original application was entertained and disposed of with a direction to the appellate authority to reconsider the representation. The original application was entertained and came to be decided on 16.5.2012. Thereafter, this writ petition was filed in the year 2014. The writ petition was entertained by this Court while granting interim relief. Now, this petition has come up for final hearing almost after a period of 11 years. Therefore, it would not be appropriate to consider the issue of limitation to hold that Original Application No.804/2010 was liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay.

14. In both the original applications, the Tribunal has held that vide order dated 19.12.2000, the respondent/applicant was imposed with the minor penalty. Looking to the punishment of withholding of increment under Rule 11(iv) of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, withholding of increment without cumulative effect comes under the mode of minor penalty and withholding

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:62814

9 WP-15815-2012 of increment with cumulative effect is a major penalty. But, as per Rule 11(v) of CCS (CCA) Rules, the penalty imposed on a delinquent is not only just stoppage of annual increment, but it should be with reduction to a lower stage in the time scale of pay for a specified period. As per order 19.12.2000, the penalty was imposed of withholding of the increment for 06 years, and according to the respondents, after a period of 06 years, since the increments have been paid to him; therefore, it was a minor penalty imposed upon him by treating the period as 'dies non' . In paragraph 10 of the order dated 04.10.2013, the learned Tribunal has quoted the Administrative Instructions No.3, according to which if the departmental as well as judicial proceedings concluded with the acquittal or minor penalty, the suspension should be considered as wholly unjustified and the concerned employee should be paid full pay and allowances for the period of suspension. Therefore, once the appellate authority has imposed minor punishment, the period of suspension cannot be treated as 'dies non '.

15. Hence, we do not find any ground to interfere with the orders of the Tribunal. Accordingly, both the writ petitions are dismissed.

(VIVEK RUSIA) (PRADEEP MITTAL) JUDGE JUDGE RM