Madhya Pradesh High Court
Deena Nath Tiwari vs Dr. Hari Singh Gour Vishwavidyalaya on 5 September, 2003
Equivalent citations: 2004(1)MPHT419
ORDER S.P. Khare, J.
1. This is a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India for quashing the orders by which the petitioner has been punished after departmental enquiry and for a direction to the respondent to pay his full salary for the period of suspension.
2. The petitioner was Store-keeper Grade I in Dr. Hari Singh Gaur University, Sagar. He was served with a charge-sheet on 18-11-1988. The charge was that he forged a cash memo and entered it in the stock register for payment. The original amount of the cash memo was Rs. 30/- and the alternations were done to the extent that the amount of Rs. 250/- became payable under it. The enquiry report is dated 20-3-1989. This report shows that it was not proved that the petitioner forged the cash memo but it was held that he entered this forged cash memo in the stock register and passed it for payment of Rs. 250/-. This cash memo, a photo-copy of which is annexed to the charge-sheet (Annexure P-1) appears on the fact of it as forged. The Registrar of the University as disciplinary authority accepted the enquiry report and imposed the penalty of reversion of the petitioner from the post of Storekeeper Grade I to Grade II by the impugned order dated 19-5-1989 (Annexure P-2). He was also denied his pay for the suspension period beyond the subsistence allowance. The Vice Chancellor on appeal by order dated 31-10-1989 reduced the penalty of reversion to stoppage of increment for two years with cumulative effect.
3. The petitioner's case is that he did not commit any forgery and simply entry of that cash memo in the stock register does not show that he is guilty of any misconduct. According to him the punishment is excessive. The return has not been filed by the University.
4. After hearing the learned Counsel for both the parties and after perusal of the enquiry report and the impugned orders this Court is of the opinion that the petitioner has been rightly held guilty partly for the misconduct. It could not be proved that the petitioner forged the cash memo. It was found that some alteration in the cash memo was made by the Research Scholar B.K. Kesharwani. But the petitioner did make entry of this forged cash memo in the stock register and affixed the seals "passed for payment" and "paid from imprest". This exhibits the guilty animus of the petitioner. The cash memo on the face of it is forged one. The petitioner could not be fully exonerated. The misconduct was rightly held to be partly proved.
5. The penalty of withholding of two increments by the order of the Vice Chancellor can not be said to be excessive. But the order depriving the petitioner of his salary for the suspension period was not proper. Such order is generally passed when a major penalty is imposed. The withholding of two increments is a minor penalty and in case of imposition of such penalty the employee is not to be deprived of his salary for the suspension period as that becomes more penal than the penalty which has been consciously imposed. 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 therein 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 University should also follow it.
6. In the result this petition is partly allowed. The order dated 31-10-1989 of the Vice Chancellor is modified to the extent that the petitioner will be paid his full salary for the period of suspension.