Madhya Pradesh High Court
Santosh Katariya vs The State Of M. P. on 9 January, 2025
Author: Vijay Kumar Shukla
Bench: Vijay Kumar Shukla
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:577
1 WP-40672-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA
ON THE 9 th OF JANUARY, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 40672 of 2024
SANTOSH KATARIYA
Versus
THE STATE OF M. P. AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Mohammed Iqbal Khan, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Kushagra Jain, learned Deputy GA for the respondents/State.
ORDER
In the instant petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, the petitioner is challenging the legality and validity of the order dated
29.10.2024 passed by respondent No.4 whereby the petitioner has been
denied the difference of salary and other benefits like increment for the
period of suspension.
02. The facts of the case are that the petitioner was initially appointed
| on the. post of -constable/driver on 31.10.2003. On July 2015 when the
petitioner was posted at Kanadia police station Indore, criminal case under
section 7, 8, 13(1)(d), 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and under
section 120-b of IPC against the petitioner and two other co-accused on 17.7.
2015. by Special Police establishment (Lokayukt) Bhopal unit Indore (M.P.)
in Crime no.308/2015. After investigation of the case, they were challaned.
Consequently, petitioner was placed under suspension by order dated
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:577
2 WP-40672-2024
10.10.2020. The trial ended in the acquittal of the petitioner by judgment
dated 30.05.2024 passed by Special Judge (Prevention of Corruption Act)
Indore, in Special Case No. 16/201. After acquittal order passed by learned
trial court, respondent revoked the suspension order and reinstated the
petitioner in service on 14.06. 2024. after that respondent no.4 passed the
order dated 29.10. 2024 (Annexure P/1) and ordered that suspension period
of petitioner from 10th October 2020 to 14th June 2024 is counted as
suspension period and nothing more will be payable in addition to whatever
has already paid - during suspension period.
03. Counsel for the petitioner argued that after the acquittal in a
criminal case, the petitioner has to be granted difference of salary for the
suspension period as well as increment etc. In support of his submission, he
has relied on a judgment passed by coordinate Bench in WP No.502/2024
(Uday Waghmare vs. The State of M.P. & Ors.). In the said case the
coordinate Bench has taken into consideration the judgment passed by the
Division Bench in the case of Ram Ratan Tiwari vs. State of M.P. & Ors.
2002(4) MPLJ 401. In the said judgment the Court has held that after
acquittal in a criminal case, the employee is entitled for full salary of the
suspension period with arrears and is also entitled to the other pecuniary
benefits.
04. Considering the aforesaid submissions, this Court deems it
expedient to dispose of the petition with liberty to the petitioner to file
application before the respondent No.4 for reconsideration of the impugned
order dated 29.10.2024 along with copy of the order passed in the case of
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:577
3 WP-40672-2024
Uday Waghmare (supra) and the order passed by this Court today within a
period of 15 days from today and if such application for reconsideration is
filed within the said period, the respondent No.4 shall consider and decide
the claim of the petitioner afresh keeping in view the judgment passed by the
Division Bench in the case of Ram Ratan Tiwari (supra) and Uday
Waghmare (supra) within a period of two months from the date of filing of
the application without being influenced by the impugned order 29.10.2024.
05. With the aforesaid, the petition is allowed and disposed off.
(VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA)
JUDGE
soumya
