Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Chief General Manager Mpmkvv vs Mahesh Kumar Sharma on 3 February, 2017

                                  1
                                                          WA.92/2017

 Chief General Manager & Ors. Vs. Mahesh Kumar Sharma
03.02.2017
      Shri Rajendra Bhargava, counsel for the appellant.
      None for the respondent.

1. This intra court appeal filed under Section 2(i) of M.P. Uchcha Nyayalaya ( Khand Nyaypeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005 assails the final order dated 10.11.2016 passed by learned Single Judge in WP No.1413/2015 whereby the claim of the appellant for grant of full salary for the period of suspension which culminated into infliction of minor penalty of censure has been allowed by directing the respondents to pay full salary for the said period.

2. Learned counsel for the employer / appellant is heard.

3. Learned counsel for the employer is unable to point out any executive instruction or judicial verdict against grant of salary for period of suspension where the disciplinary enquiry has culminated into minor punishment. The decision of this court in the case of Y.S. Sachan Vs. State of M.P. and Ors, 2004 (1) M.P.H.T. 22 referred to in the impugned order dated 10.11.2016 vide Annexure A/1 could not be distinguished by the counsel for the appellant. Moreso, this Court has taken similar view on earlier occasion in the case of State of M.P. Vs. Udaiveer Singh, 2013 SCC Online MP 3823. Relevant para-4 of the said decision is reproduced below :-

"4. Pertinently the issue in question is no more res- integra in view of the same having been decided by this Court in the case of State of M.P. Vs. Shailendra reported in 2011 ILR 2315. Further, the executive instruction issued by the State dated 13.01.2005 ( which finds reference in the said division Bench decision) categorically provides for treating the period of suspension as on duty and entitlement for full salary in case of suspension culminates into minor penalty."

4. Exposition of legal position at this stage would be apt.

FR 54-B obliges the competent authority at the time of revocation of suspension to take a specific decision as regards treating the period of suspension on two aspects. The first is the entitlement or otherwise of the delinquent employee to full salary during period of suspension and the other is of treating the said period as on duty or not. In the present case, the competent authority has though treated the period of suspension as on duty but has denied full salary for the same.

5. A bare perusal of the impugned order in the writ petition reflects that no specific reason has been assigned for denial of full salary despite the punishment inflicted being censure.

6. In view of the above, this Court does not see any reason to take a different view than the one taken by the Writ Court. Accordingly, the present writ appeal fails and is hereby dismissed sans cost.

           (Sheel Nagu)                               (S.A.Dharmadhikari)
              Judge                                         Judge

 BU
sarathe