Research › Search › Judgment

Chhattisgarh High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 385 (CHH)

VYAS NARAYAN PANDEY v. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

2018-07-10

P.SAM KOSHY

body2018
JUDGMENT : P. Sam Koshy, J. 1. The limited grievance in the instant case is grant of entire consequential benefits during the period of suspension of the petitioner between 13.01.2005 to 24.06.2006 as a consequence of the exoneration in the Departmental Enquiry (in short, DE) and disciplinary enquiry initiated ending up with no punishment inflicted upon the petitioner. 2. The facts of the case is that, the petitioner while working as Headmaster of the Govt. Primary School Chikhali was placed under suspension on 17.01.2005 contemplating DE and his suspension period continued up till 24.06.2006. Meanwhile, DE which was conducted did not find the petitioner guilty of the charge which was levelled against him and the impugned order was finally passed on 01.05.2008 wherein the period of absence from duty in between 11.01.2005 to 13.01.2005 was declared as leave without pay. However, the period of suspension has been ordered to be treated as period spent on duty, but he was not entitled for any monetary benefits except for the subsistence allowance that he has been paid. It is this order which is under challenge in the present writ petition. 3. According to petitioner, the aforesaid order cannot be construed as order of punishment as no punishment has been imposed against the petitioner in the DE. There is no finding to the extent of the charges which have been levelled against him to have been proved. The impugned order is also bad in law in the light of the circular of the State Govt. dated 23.11.2010 whereby the State Govt. had taken a policy decision that where departmental proceedings against a suspended employee for the imposition of a major misconduct finally end with the imposition of a minor punishment, he would be entitled for the entire wages and allowances for the period of suspension. He also relied upon the decision of MP High Court in case of Y.S. Sachan Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors, (2004) 1 MPHT 22 wherein under similar facts and circumstances, the High Court has ordered for grant of entire pay and allowances to the employee after adjusting the subsistence allowance that he has received. The petitioner has prayed for similar relief. 4. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors, (2004) 1 MPHT 22 wherein under similar facts and circumstances, the High Court has ordered for grant of entire pay and allowances to the employee after adjusting the subsistence allowance that he has received. The petitioner has prayed for similar relief. 4. The State counsel however opposing the petition submits that it is a case where the petitioner was subjected to disciplinary proceeding and he was also placed under suspension for a period of 1 and years, therefore the respondents have rightly regularized the period as period spent on duty and have restricted the claim of the petitioner to the extent of subsistence allowance that he has received for the period of suspension, and therefore prayed for rejection of the writ petition. 5. Having heard the rival contentions put forth on either side and on perusal of records what is clearly reflected from the proceedings is that the petitioner undisputedly was placed under suspension between 13.01.2005 to 24.06.2006. DE which was initiated against the petitioner did not find the petitioner guilty of the charges levelled. The petitioner was not inflicted with any punishment. The suspension of the petitioner stood revoked on 24.06.2006. Another factor which is revealed is that though the petitioner was prosecuted for the major misconduct under Rule 14 of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965, however, he was not found guilty of any major misconduct. 6. Given the said facts, this court is of the opinion that since the petitioner has been exonerated of all the charges which was levelled against him, decision of the respondents in placing the petitioner under suspension gets vitiated as it was totally uncalled for and was without any substantial basis. 7. It would be relevant at this juncture to refer paragraph 8 of the judgment of MP High Court in case of Y.S. Sachan which is being reproduced herein as under : "8. So far as the salary for the period of suspension is concerned, the petitioner should be paid full salary. A minor penalty has been imposed upon the petitioner. The punishment is so light and therefore the petitioner could not be saddled with the heavier penalty of depriving him the salary for the suspension period. This part of the impugned order is not a speaking order. A minor penalty has been imposed upon the petitioner. The punishment is so light and therefore the petitioner could not be saddled with the heavier penalty of depriving him the salary for the suspension period. This part of the impugned order is not a speaking order. No reasons have been assigned for depriving the petitioner of his salary for the suspension period. The Government of India has issued a circular dated 3-12-1985 stating there in that where departmental proceedings against a suspended employee for the imposition of a major penalty finally end with the imposition of a minor penalty, the suspension can be said to be wholly unjustified in terms of F.R. 54-B and the employee concerned should, therefore, be paid full pay and allowances for the period of suspension by passing a suitable order under F.R. 54-B. The guideline issued by the Central Government for its employees is just and reasonable and it should be followed by the State Government and its instrumentality. The Jabalpur Development Authority is also such instrumentality and it will also be governed by such interpretation of Rule 54-B of the Fundamental Rules." 8. The respondent-State of Chhattisgarh by a subsequent circular dated 23.11.2010 have adopted the same analogy wherein in paragraph 6 of the said circular it has been held as under: ^^6- eq[; 'kfLr gsrq lafLFkr foHkkxh; tkap esa ;fn fdlh fuyafcr 'kkldh; lsod ij tkap mijkar y?kq 'kkfLr gh vf/kjksfir dh tkrh gS rks mldk fuyacu vkSfpR;iw.kZ ugha ekuk tk ldrkA vr% jkT; 'kklu us fu.kZ; fy;k gS fd ,sls ekeyksa esa lacaf/kr 'kkldh; lsod dh fuyacu vof/k dks ewyHkwr fu;e 54&ch ds ifjÁs{; esa drZO; vof/k ekU; dj fuyacu vof/k ds laiw.kZ osru&HkRrs ¼'kkldh; lsod ds fuyacu vof/k esa Hkqxrku fd, x, ^^thou fuokZg HkRrs** dh jkf'k dk lek;kstu dj½ fn, tk,aA ;g fu.kZ; bl Kkiu ds Ádkf'kr gksus dh frfFk ls ykxw gksxk rFkk ftu Ádj.kksa esa fu.kZ; fy;k tk pqdk gS] os iqu% ugha [kksys tk,axsA** 9. When we compare the aforesaid circular of the State Govt. as also the judgment of MP High Court in case of Y.S. Sachan to the facts of the present case, both squarely fits into the facts of the present case wherein proceeding against the present petitioner though was initiated for major misconduct, but ended without any punishment after conclusion of DE. as also the judgment of MP High Court in case of Y.S. Sachan to the facts of the present case, both squarely fits into the facts of the present case wherein proceeding against the present petitioner though was initiated for major misconduct, but ended without any punishment after conclusion of DE. Therefore, the petitioner would be entitled for all consequential reliefs for the period of suspension between 13.01.2005 to 24.06.2006. 10. The writ petition accordingly stands allowed and disposed of. It is directed that the petitioner be granted entire relief which he was otherwise entitled for had he not been placed under suspension between 13.01.2005 to 24.06.2006. While granting the said relief, the respondents shall adjust the subsistence allowance that has already been paid to him.