Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 258 (MP)

Man Singh v. State of M. P.

2006-02-15

J.K.MAHESHWARI

body2006
Judgment ( 1. ) HEARD. It is the case of the petitioner that he was posted as Constable in the Police Station, MIG, Indore. ( 2. ) A criminal case registered against him at Crime No. 3259/94 in the Police Station, MIG, Indore, under Sections 366 and 376, Indian Penal Code. On account of a criminal case against the petitioner, an order of suspension was passed by respondent No. 2 on 16-7-1994. ( 3. ) IT is further case of the petitioner that he was acquitted honorably, by the 6th Additional Sessions Judge, Indore In Session Trial No. 449/94, vide judgment dated 20-12-1996. On account of acquittal, the Competent Authority has passed an order on 14-1-1997 Annexure A-2, reinstating the petitioner on revocation of suspension. In the order Annexure A-2, it was mentioned that the period of suspension shall be decided after completion of the process of filing of the appeal. ( 4. ) COUNSEL for the petitioner submits that on revocation of the suspension, petitioner has joined his duties and performed his work with utmost sincerity and devotion. Despite expiry of the period of appeal no action has been taken by the Government to prefer an appeal before the High Court, challenging the order of Sessions Court. It is submitted by the Counsel for the petitioner that the respondent should have passed an order in exercise of the powers as conferred under Fundamental Rules 54-B (3), by giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and to record the reasons as required therein. Passing an order impugned Annexure A-4, dated 30-4-1998, denying the salary to the petitioner through the period of suspension period is not permissible. ( 5. ) IT is submitted by the Counsel that prior to passing an order Annexure A-4, petitioner has neither been given notice nor an opportunity of hearing furnished to him. At the same time, it is also submitted that passing an order of denial of the salary without assigning any reason as required under provisions of the Fundamental Rules 54-B (3), is not permissible. ( 6. ) COUNSEL for the respondent has filed the return and the only defence taken, is, the order Annexure A-4 has been passed in conformity with the provisions of the Fundamental Rules 54-B (3 ). After going through with the return, I found that the return is as vague as usual. ( 7. ( 6. ) COUNSEL for the respondent has filed the return and the only defence taken, is, the order Annexure A-4 has been passed in conformity with the provisions of the Fundamental Rules 54-B (3 ). After going through with the return, I found that the return is as vague as usual. ( 7. ) I have heard learned Counsel appearing for the parties and perused the records. On perusal of the records it is seen, that the order of suspension dated 16-7-1994 was passed on account of registration of a criminal case against petitioner. The criminal case has been resulted into acquittal as per judgment dated 20-12-1996 Annexure A-l. In such circumstances in consequences, thereof, petitioner is entitled for reinstatement on revocation of the order of suspension. The Competent Authority has passed order on 14-1-1997, reinstating the petitioner on revocation of suspension. In this order it was mentioned that such period of suspension shall be decided after completion of the process of filing of the appeal. The appeal has not been preferred against the order passed by the Sessions Court. However, respondent No. 2 has again passed an order on 30-4-1998 Annexure A-4, by which the payment of the salary has been denied, without assigning any reason. ( 8. ) IN this context, I may profitably refer the provision F. R. 54-B (3) and (4 ). The same is reproduced as under: (3) Where the authority competent to order re-instatement is of the opinion that the suspension was wholly unjustified, the Government servant, shall subject to the provisions of sub-rule (8), be paid the full pay and allowances to which he would have been entitled, had he not been suspended Provided that where such authority is of the opinion that the termination of the proceedings instituted against the Government servant, had been delayed due to reasons directly attributable to the Government servant, it may, after giving, him an opportunity to make his representation (within 60 days from the date on which the communication in this regard is served on him) and after considering the representation, if any, submitted by him direct, for reasons to be recorded in writing that the Government servant shall be paid for the period of such delay, only such [amount (not being the whole)] of such pay and allowances as it may determine. (4) In a case falling-under sub-rule (3), the period of suspension shall be treated as a period spent on duty for all purposes. ( 9. ) ON going through the contents of return, it is not apparent that, prior to passing an order any show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner and an opportunity of hearing was given to him. On perusal of the order Annexure A-4, it does not reveal that Competent Authority has applied his mind while passing an order to deny the payment of the salary of the suspension period by assigning the reasons. ( 10. ) IN view of the foregoing discussion, it is to be held that the order Annexure A-4, dated 30-4-1998 passed by respondent No. 2 is without application of mind and without following the procedure as prescribed under Fundamental Rules 54-B (3 ). Therefore, the order Annexure A-4 is hereby quashed. Respondent is directed to reconsider the matter towards grant of full salary of the period of suspension and to pass an appropriate order in accordance with the provisions of Fundamental Rules 54-B (3 ). The aforesaid exercise may be completed by the respondent within a period of two months from the date of communication of this order. ( 11. ) WITH the aforesaid direction, petition is allowed. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there is no order as to costs.