Judgment ( 1. ) PETITIONER was appointed in the services of respondents as assistant Engineer on 18-2-1991 on one years probation. After completion of probation, he was confirmed. M. P. Electricity Board vide its order dated 19-2-2000 (Annx. RJ/1) provided for higher pay scale on completion of 9/18/25 years of service. This option was available to the officer for next higher pay scale from the date following the date on which he completes 9 years of service (excluding supersession period if any) in the existing post. Petitioner completed 9 years of service on 18-2-2000. Accordingly, he was granted higher pay scale with effect from 19-2-2000 vide order No. 01-05/iii/hps/1146 dated 14-8-2003 (Annx. P/1 ). Vide impugned order Annx. P/2 dated 20-12-2004, it was directed that recovery of Rs. 91,365/- be made from the petitioner on the ground that a punishment of censure was imposed on the petitioner vide order dated 20-10-2004 marked as annx. R/2. First instalment of Rs. 15,553/- was recovered from the petitioner towards the impugned partial recovery. ( 2. ) SHRI Akash Choudhary, learned counsel contended that in view of annx. RJ/1 read with Annx. RJ/2, the petitioner was rightly granted the higher pay scale and the impugned order being totally illegal and arbitrary, is not sustainable in law. ( 3. ) IN the return, it has been stated that the penalty of censure was imposed for the period prior to the date when the petitioner became entitled to the higher pay scale. It is further stated that higher pay scale could have been granted to the officer who was otherwise fit for promotion on the basis of overall performance as per the criteria laid down by the Board from time to time. This apart, it was clearly mentioned in Annx. P/1 that the order of granting higher pay scale should not be forwarded to the officer concerned, if, it is found that any disciplinary action/departmental enquiry is pending/contemplated against him or he is undergoing punishment. Accordingly, it is stated that the petitioner was granted the higher pay scale in an illegal manner and the recovery of surplus amount may be made from him. ( 4. ) HEARD the learned counsel in the light of pleadings contained in the writ petition, return, rejoinder and the additional return. ( 5. ) AS regards the note which finds place in Annx. ( 4. ) HEARD the learned counsel in the light of pleadings contained in the writ petition, return, rejoinder and the additional return. ( 5. ) AS regards the note which finds place in Annx. P/1, the same is reproduced below :- "it is requested that this order should not be forwarded to the officer if it is found that any disciplinary action/departmental enquiry is pending/contemplated against him or he is undergoing punishment. In such an event, the copy of the order meant for him may be returned to this office and the concerned Sr. A. O. /rao may be informed not to give effect of this order. " ( 6. ) FROM the record, it is an admitted position that the petitioner completed 9 years of his service as Assistant Engineer on 18-2-2000. He became entitled for higher pay scale on this date when no show cause notice was issued and no departmental enquiry was pending. On the basis of the record available before this Court, it cannot be said that any disciplinary action or departmental enquiry was contemplated on this day against the petitioner. Moreover, the Honble supreme Court of India in the case of Coal India Ltd. and others vs. Saroj Kumar mishra, 2007 AIR SCW 2662, has clearly held that ordinarily departmental proceeding is said to be initiated only when a charge-sheet is issued. In the case in hand, even the show cause notice Annx. R/1 was issued after about two years from the date of completion of 9 years of service by the petitioner. Thus, by no stretch of imagination, it can be said that on the due date any disciplinary action or departmental enquiry was pending or contemplated against the petitioner. Since the order of censure was passed on 20-10-2004 vide Annx. R/2, it cannot be said that the petitioner was undergoing punishment on due date. ( 7. ) IN the matter of grant of higher pay scale, relevant portion of Annx. Since the order of censure was passed on 20-10-2004 vide Annx. R/2, it cannot be said that the petitioner was undergoing punishment on due date. ( 7. ) IN the matter of grant of higher pay scale, relevant portion of Annx. RJ/1 dated 19-7-1990 is as follows :- "in supersession of the existing orders, except order 01-05/1/95 dated 26-5-1990, the Board is pleased to grant the benefit to two options for higher pay scale to the Class-I and Class-II officers on completion of 9/18/25 years of service, subject to the following conditions :-1st Option:- (i) The officer will be eligible for exercising first option to the next higher scale from the date following the date on which he completes 9 years of service (excluding supersession period if any) in the existing post. " ( 8. ) IT is an admitted position that the penalty of censure was imposed on the petitioner vide order dated 20-10-2004 contained in Annx. R/2. It was more than 21/2 years after the due date which falls on the date immediately after completion of 9 years of service by the petitioner. In the circular dated 8-12-1993, marked as annx. RJ/2, it has been made clear by Clause- (ii) in the following manner :- "if on the date on which the employee is due to get higher pay scale, no departmental enquiry is pending or if the employee is not undergoing punishment, the benefit of higher pay scale should be given from the due date and any enquiry ordered or punishment awarded subsequently would not affect the issue of the order of the higher pay scale. In other words, the position as on the due date should be kept in view for the purpose of higher pay scale and not the events coming up alter the due date. " ( 9. ) ON a conjoint reading of Annx. RJ/1 and RJ/2, it is clear that there is no ill-effect of the order of censure on Annx. P/1 because on the due date, no departmental enquiry was pending or contemplated and the petitioner was not undergoing any sort of punishment. It has been made crystal clear by Annx. RJ/2 that any enquiry ordered or punishment awarded subsequently did not affect the order of higher pay scale made in favour of the petitioner vide Annx. P/1. It has been made further clear that the provision as. It has been made crystal clear by Annx. RJ/2 that any enquiry ordered or punishment awarded subsequently did not affect the order of higher pay scale made in favour of the petitioner vide Annx. P/1. It has been made further clear that the provision as. on the due date should be kept in view for the purpose of higher pay scale and not the event coming up after the due date. Petitioners claim is, thus, fairly covered by Annx. RJ/1 and RJ/2. ( 10. ) LEARNED counsel for respondents Shri Anoop Nair, has been unable to point out any other contrary provision which could have prevented the petitioner from claiming the benefit of Annx. RJ/1 and RJ/2. ( 11. ) THIS being so, it is held that the show cause notice as well as the order of censure are having no vitiating effect on Annx. P/1. Consequently, the impugned order for recovery of surplus money being contrary to Annx. RJ/1 and rj/2 is not sustainable in law. 12. In the result, writ petition deserves to be allowed and hence allowed. Impugned order contained in Annx. P/2 is, hereby, quashed. Respondents are directed to refund the amount of recovery realised from the petitioner pursuant to the impugned order within a period of one month from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. In case of failure to refund the money within the stipulated period, the respondents shall be liable to pay interest @ 9% per annum. Needless to say that the petitioner having been found entitled to the higher pay scale with effect from 18-2-2000 would be continued to enjoy the higher pay scale unless otherwise directed in accordance with law. No order as to costs. Writ petition allowed.