Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 1174 (MP)

Manohar Singh Chauhan v. State of M. P.

2020-11-02

VIVEK RUSIA

body2020
ORDER 1. The petitioner has filed the present petition being aggrieved by the order dated 11.9.2018; whereby the period of suspension has been treated as dies-non while punishing him by the stoppage of one increment with cumulative effect. The petitioner was working as a Secretary of Gram Panchayat and vide order dated 10.7.2017 he was placed under suspension in contemplation of departmental enquiry. After conducting the departmental enquiry vide impugned order dated 11.9.2018 the petitioner was imposed with the penalty of stoppage of one increment with cumulative effect and the period of suspension was as dies-non. 2. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the petitioner has preferred a representation mainly on the ground that in similar facts and circumstances while closing the departmental enquiry the period of suspension has never been treated as dies-non. After filling the representation he waited for two years and now he has filed the present writ petition before this Court. 3. Learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the State submits that the representation is still pending and the petitioner is also having remedy of appeal against the impugned order the Madhya Pradesh Panchayats (Appeal and Revision) Rules, 1995. 4. Shri Ratnaparkhe, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that a similar issue came up for consideration before this Court in W.P. No.13075/2018, in which this Court has held that in case of discharge after the departmental enquiry or imposition of minor punishment the delinquent is entitled to salary for the entire period of suspension. 5. The relavent part of the order passed in W.P. No.13075/2018 is reproduced below :- 5. The petitioner is at the verge of retirement therefore, he is not challenging the punishment given to him, but he is aggrieved only by order passed under section 54(5) F.R. rule by which he has been denied full salary and allowances payable during period of suspension. As per F.R. 54(B) when a Government servant who has been suspended is reinstated the authority competent to order reinstatement shall consider and make a specific order regarding pay and allowances to be paid to him for the period of suspension ending with reinstatement. As per F.R. 54(B) when a Government servant who has been suspended is reinstated the authority competent to order reinstatement shall consider and make a specific order regarding pay and allowances to be paid to him for the period of suspension ending with reinstatement. According to sub-rule (3) where the authority competent to order reinstatement is of the opinion that the suspension is wholly unjustified, the Government Servant shall be subject to the provision of the sub-rule (8) be paid full pay and allowances to which he would have been entitled had he not been suspended. As per sub-rule (5), if the Government servant is not found entitled for the full amount of pay and allowances payable during the suspension period the Competent Authority may determine any amount after giving notice to the Government servant by proposing the quantum payable to him. It is not in dispute that the period of suspension is liable to be treated into the service. In the present case, before passing the impugned order, the petitioner was not given any opportunity to give the representation and the competent authority has decided not to pay the full pay and the allowances to him. This Court in the case of Deena Nath Tiwari v. Dr. Hari Singh Gour Vishwavidyalaya, Sagar (supra), and in the case of Y.S. Sachan v. State of M.P. & Ors. (supra), has held that withholding of two increments as a minor penalty and in case of imposition of such penalty, the employee is not to be a deprived of his salary for the period of suspension as that become more penal than the penalty, which has been imposed. No reasons have been assigned for depriving him of his salary for the suspension period. The suspension can be said to be wholly unjustified in terms of F.R. 54-B and the concerned employee should be paid full pay and allowance for the period of suspension by passing a suitable order under F.R.54-B. The guidelines issued by the Central Government for its employees are just and reasonable and should be followed by the State Government in its instrumentality. In the State of M.P, the General Administration Department has also issued a circular dated 13.1.2005 to the same effect that if the suspended employee is imposed a minor penalty after the conclusion of the departmental enquiry, then the suspension was not warranted and the State Government has taken a decision to give full pay and salary and allowances for the suspension period. 6. In view of the above, the petition succeeds and is hereby allowed in part. The order dated 27.12.2017 is quashed, so far it relates to the denial of full salary and allowances payable during the period of suspension. The respondents are directed to pay the full salary and other allowances admissible to the petitioner during the suspension period from 14.9.2017 to 27.12.2017. 6. Since the issue involved in this petition has already been decided by this Court in W.P. No.13075/2018, therefore, ground raised in this petition can be considered by the appellate authority while deciding the appeal on merit. The petitioner has a remedy of appeal under rule 8 of the Madhya Pradesh Panchayat Service (Gram Panchayat Secretary Recruitment and Conditions of Service) rules, 2011. 7. Therefore, the present petition is disposed of with the liberty to the petitioner to file an appeal against the impugned order before the appellate authority. If an appeal is preferred within 15 days from today then the same shall be considered in accordance with the law without adverting on the issue of limitation. It is expected from the authority to pass a speaking order within the period of 45 days from the date of its presentation. 8. Petition is accordingly disposed of. Kaivalya Ratnaparkhe for petitioner; Ayushyaman Choudhary, Panel Lawyer for respondent/State.