Madhya Pradesh High Court
Smt. Sarika Shrivastava vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 1 March, 2025
1 WP-24188-2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
WP No. 24188 of 2018
(SMT. SARIKA SHRIVASTAVA Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS )
Dated : 01-03-2025
Shri Girija Shankar Sharma - advocate for the petitioner [P-1].
Shri Prabhat Pateriya G.A. appearing on behalf of Advocate General.
The petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging the order dated
11/01/2018, whereby minor punishment of stoppage of two increments
without cumulative effect has been imposed on the petitioner. He has also
challenged the order dated 07/05/2018 (Annexure P/2) and the order dated
20/08/2018 (Annexure P/3), whereby, his appeal and revision filed against
the order of punishment have been dismissed by the authorities.
The facts necessary for decision of this case are that the petitioner at
the relevant time was posted as Teacher in the Government Higher
Secondary School, Banmore, District Morena. The Principal of the school
vide memo dated 16/08/2016 (Annexure R/3) informed the District
Education Officer about petitioner's remaining absent from duty. It was also
reported that even though there is a question mark put in the attendance
register, the petitioner used to sign the attendance register. Taking note of the
complaint by the Principal, the District Education Officer issued a show
cause notice to the petitioner on 08/9/2016 (Annexure R/2). The petitioner
was asked to submit reply to the show cause notice failing which, it was
stated that ex-parte proceedings will be concluded. The petitioner failed to
give any reply to the show cause notice. Thus the District Education Officer
2 WP-24188-2018
vide order dated 11/01/2018 (Annexure P/1) imposed minor punishment of
stoppage of two increments without cumulative effect on the petitioner with
further direction that she will not be entitled for pay and allowances during
the period of suspension except subsistence allowance already paid to her.
Admittedly, the petitioner failed to give reply to the show cause notice.
Meaning thereby, the allegation of frequently remaining absent from duty
and putting signature on the attendance register unauthorizedly remain
unrebutted. In the petition also the petitioner has not given any explanation
for her remaining absence from the duty. Therefore, it cannot be said that the
minor punishment imposed upon the petitioner is without any justification or
the same is illegal.
The question regarding pay and allowance for the period of suspension
is required to be considered. The minor penalty proceedings initiated against
the petitioner culminated into passing of the punishment order, therefore, it
cannot be said that the suspension of the petitioner was wholly unjustified.
She has been paid subsistence allowance during the period of suspension,
therefore, no fault can be found with the action of the authority, if she has
been denied full pay and allowances for the period of suspension.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the
judgment delivered in the case of Y.S. Sachan vs. State of M.P. reported in
2003 (4) MPLJ 219, to buttress his submissions. In view of said judgment, it
is submitted that the petitioner should be paid full pay and allowance for the
period of suspension. In the case of Y.S. Sachan (supra) major penalty
proceeding was initiated upon the incumbent which concluded in imposition
3 WP-24188-2018
of minor penalty. In those circumstances, this Court held that the suspension
of incumbent was not justified. However, in the instant case, minor
punishment proceeding was initiated in which minor penalty of stoppage of
two increments without cumulative effect has been imposed on the
petitioner. Therefore, suspension cannot be said to be unjustified and
decision of the authority denying benefit of full pay and allowance to the
petitioner for the period of suspension cannot be said to be illegal and
unjustified.
Resultantly, the instant petition fails and is hereby dismissed.
(ASHISH SHROTI)
JUDGE
Durgekar
