Madhya Pradesh High Court
Nagjiram vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 17 April, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:12413
1 WP-11749-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE JAI KUMAR PILLAI
WRIT PETITION No. 11749 of 2024
NAGJIRAM
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Gaurav Panchal, counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Sudeep Bhargava, counsel for the respondents/State.
Reserved on: 17.04.2026
Post on: 04.05.2026
ORDER
1. By way of this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has approached this Court challenging the impugned order dated 23/04/2019 (Annexure P/1) passed by Respondent No. 4. Through the said impugned order, it has been held that the petitioner is not entitled to the salary for his suspension period from 05/02/2008 to 16/06/2014. The respondents have restricted the emoluments for the said period solely to the subsistence allowance already paid, on account of the infliction of a major penalty upon the petitioner.
2. The primary relief sought by the petitioner is the issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash and set aside the impugned order dated 23/04/2019. Further, the petitioner seeks a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to release the arrears of salary for the aforementioned suspension period, along with interest at the rate of 18% per annum, and any Signature Not Verified Signed by: ARUN NAIR Signing time: 5/4/2026 6:08:17 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:12413 2 WP-11749-2024 other consequential relief deemed fit by this Court. Facts of the Case
3. The petitioner was initially appointed on 03/07/1986 as a Deputy Teacher and subsequently regularized as an Assistant Teacher vide order dated 18/09/1987. While posted at Government Primary School Kankadada, District Ujjain, the petitioner was placed under suspension vide order dated 05/02/2008. A charge sheet was issued on 14/03/2008, leveling three charges of misbehavior with senior officers. A Departmental Enquiry was subsequently initiated against him vide order dated 03/09/2008.
4. Concurrently, a criminal case (Criminal Case No. 61/2008) under Sections 294 and 506 of the IPC was registered against the petitioner on the same set of facts. The Judicial Magistrate First Class, Nagda, acquitted the petitioner on 15/12/2012 on the basis of a compromise under Section 320(8) of the Cr.P.C. Despite the acquittal, the departmental proceedings remained pending, prompting the petitioner to submit representations for the revocation of his suspension and the payment of arrears.
5. The petitioner subsequently filed W.P. No. 4549/2014 before this Court, which was disposed of on 26/06/2014 with directions to the respondents to pass a final order in the departmental proceedings and an appropriate order regarding the suspension period. However, prior to this Court's order, the disciplinary authority had already passed a punishment order on 16/06/2014, holding the petitioner guilty and inflicting a major penalty of withholding two increments with cumulative effect.
6. The punishment order dated 16/06/2014 did not contain any recital Signature Not Verified Signed by: ARUN NAIR Signing time: 5/4/2026 6:08:17 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:12413 3 WP-11749-2024 regarding the disposal of the suspension period. The petitioner submitted representations on 04/10/2018, 26/10/2018, and 30/10/2018, claiming the benefit of salary for the suspension period. In response to these representations, Respondent No. 4 passed the impugned order dated 23/04/2019, deciding that the petitioner would only be entitled to subsistence allowance for the suspension period.
Contentions of the Petitioner
7. The petitioner contends that the impugned order dated 23/04/2019 is entirely without jurisdiction, arbitrary, and an afterthought. It is submitted that since the original punishment order dated 16/06/2014 contained no recital withholding the salary for the suspension period, the respondents could not issue a subsequent order modifying the penalty after a lapse of nearly five years.
8. It is further argued that the action of the respondents violates Rule 29 of the M.P. Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966. The petitioner asserts that Rule 29 permits the review of an order of penalty only within a period of six months. Therefore, modifying the order to restrict the suspension period benefits after five years amounts to a colourable exercise of power and violates Articles 14, 16, and 21 of the Constitution of India.
9. The petitioner also submits that the departmental enquiry was conducted in violation of Rule 14 of the CCA Rules, 1966, and the principles of natural justice. It is urged that the disciplinary authority failed to consider his acquittal in the criminal case. To substantiate his claim for the payment of arrears, the petitioner has relied upon the decision of this Court in the case Signature Not Verified Signed by: ARUN NAIR Signing time: 5/4/2026 6:08:17 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:12413 4 WP-11749-2024 of Shailendra Singh Thakur Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh and Others (W.P. No. 9966-2024, decided on 30/01/2026).
Contentions of the Respondents
10. Per contra, the respondents contend that the petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of inordinate delay, as the impugned order was passed on 23/04/2019, and the present challenge has been mounted after a significant lapse of time. On merits, it is submitted that the petitioner was placed under suspension for behaving indecently with the Cluster Principal, and his acquittal in the criminal case was merely based on a compromise, not on merits.
11. The respondents submit that the order dated 23/04/2019 is not a "review" of the original punishment order dated 16/06/2014. Since the initial punishment order was silent on the treatment of the suspension period, the impugned order was passed to resolve the petitioner's own representation dated 04/10/2018. It merely decided the unsettled issue of the suspension period in accordance with the applicable service rules.
12. It is further asserted that because the departmental enquiry culminated in the imposition of a major penalty (withholding of two increments with cumulative effect), the petitioner is not legally entitled to full salary for the suspension period. Under the relevant rules, a delinquent employee punished with a major penalty is only entitled to the subsistence allowance already drawn during the period of suspension.
Analysis and Conclusion Signature Not Verified Signed by: ARUN NAIR Signing time: 5/4/2026 6:08:17 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:12413 5 WP-11749-2024
13. Heard the arguments and perused the record. The jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution in matters of disciplinary proceedings is strictly circumscribed. This Court does not sit as an appellate authority over the findings of the disciplinary authority, but rather examines whether the decision-making process is vitiated by procedural irregularities, jurisdictional errors, or statutory violations.
14. The core issue in the present case is whether the respondents acted without jurisdiction in passing the impugned order dated 23/04/2019 to restrict the petitioner's emoluments for the suspension period to the subsistence allowance. The record clearly establishes that a major penalty was imposed upon the petitioner vide order dated 16/06/2014, and the said penalty attained finality as it was never challenged by the petitioner.
15. The argument that the impugned order constitutes an illegal review under Rule 29 of the CCA Rules is misplaced. The original order dated 16/06/2014 left the treatment of the suspension period undecided. Therefore, the order dated 23/04/2019 was a consequential, independent order passed specifically to address the petitioner's representation regarding the suspension period. It merely clarified the statutory consequence of a major penalty, which does not amount to a review of the punishment itself.
16. The reliance placed by the petitioner on the judgment in Shailendra Singh Thakur Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh and Others (W.P. No. 9966-2024, decided on 30/01/2026) is of no assistance to him. The said case is clearly distinguishable on facts. In the matter of Shailendra Singh Thakur, no disciplinary inquiry was conducted against the employee. In stark contrast, in the present case, a full-fledged departmental enquiry was conducted Signature Not Verified Signed by: ARUN NAIR Signing time: 5/4/2026 6:08:17 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:12413 6 WP-11749-2024 which culminated in a finding of guilt and the imposition of a major penalty.
17. It is a well-settled principle of service jurisprudence that when an employee is inflicted with a major penalty following a duly conducted departmental enquiry, he cannot claim the salary for the suspension period as a matter of right. The respondents were legally justified in restricting the petitioner's financial benefits for the suspension period to the subsistence allowance already paid to him. No statutory rule or constitutional provision has been violated.
18. Consequently, the impugned order dated 23/04/2019 does not suffer from any legal infirmity, arbitrariness, or jurisdictional error that would warrant interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner has failed to make out any case for the grant of the reliefs prayed for.
19. Resultantly, the present Writ Petition is devoid of merit and is hereby dismissed.
2 0 . Pending interlocutory applications, if any, shall be disposed of accordingly.
No order as to costs.
(JAI KUMAR PILLAI) JUDGE Arun/-
Signature Not Verified Signed by: ARUN NAIR Signing time: 5/4/2026 6:08:17 PM