Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ram Sujan Shukla vs Principal Secretary The State Of Madhya ... on 21 November, 2012
Ram Sujan Shukla Vs. State of MP and two others.
21.11.2012.
Shri V.K. Dubey for the petitioner.
Shri V.P. Tiwari, Panel Lawyer, for the State.
Petitioner was working as a Revenue Inspector. He was
appointed on 30.6.1992. However, because of his involvement
in an offence punishable under the provisions of Section 13 of
the Prevention of Corruption Act, he was suspended on
16.8.1993. He was put to trial and the Special Judge, Satna in
Special Case No.3/93 vide judgment dated 16.9.1994 convicted
the petitioner for having committed an offence under section 7
read with sections 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of
Corruption Act and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment
and fine for various periods.
In view of the aforesaid conviction of the petitioner by
the court below, he was removed from service on 21.12.1998.
In the meanwhile, petitioner challenged his conviction in
Criminal Appeal No.1134/1994 and a Bench of this Court, on
14.7.2008, acquitted the petitioner of the charges in the criminal
case. SLP filed by the State Government against the acquittal
was also dismissed as is evident from Annexure P/7 on
23.3.2009 and thereafter vide order-dated 30.6.2009, petitioner
has been reinstated in service and the period he remained out of
service has been treated on the principle of 'no work no wage'.
Now, petitioner has filed this writ petition and contends
that the period of his suspension has not been regularized in
accordance to the provisions of Fundamental Rule 53, and his
case for promotion to the next higher post has also not been
2
Ram Sujan Shukla Vs. State of MP and two others.
considered even though he has passed the requisite
departmental examination and is eligible for promotion.
Matter is pending since 2009 and till date respondents
have not filed any reply.
It is clear from the order of reinstatement passed by the competent authority as is evident from Annexure P/15 dated 30.6.2009, that after his acquittal in the criminal appeal petitioner has been reinstated and has been posted as a Revenue Inspector and the period intervening i.e... from the date of his removal to reinstatement, has been treated as 'no work no wages'. This seems to be in accordance to the law laid down by the Supreme Court in this regard.
However, as the petitioner was under suspension during the period 16.8.1993 till his removal on 21.12.1998, this period has to be regularized by passing appropriate orders in accordance with the statutory provisions as are contemplated under FR 53 and claim of the petitioner for grant of promotion at par with his immediate juniors in the seniority list, of the feeder cadre, is also to be considered and a decision taken.
Both these aspects of the matter having not been adverted to, it is a fit case where the respondents should now be directed to take action for considering the claim of the petitioner with regard to these two aspects.
Accordingly, it is directed that on the petitioner's filing a certified copy of this order, the competent authority shall pass appropriate orders with regard to regularization of the period of suspension of the petitioner in accordance to the statutory rules 3 Ram Sujan Shukla Vs. State of MP and two others.
within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.
As far as grant of promotion and other benefits to the petitioner is concerned, his claim for promotion in accordance to his entitlement as per the Recruitment Rules and his position in the seniority list viz-a-viz his immediate juniors, be taken note of and a decision taken for grant of promotion or otherwise within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.
With the aforesaid observations, this petition stands allowed and disposed of.
Certified copy as per rules.
(RAJENDRA MENON) JUDGE Aks/-