Madhya Pradesh High Court
M.P. State Warehousing Corporation vs Govardhanlal Choudaha And Anr. on 28 April, 2000
Equivalent citations: [2001(91)FLR1077], (2002)IVLLJ727MP, 2000(3)MPHT133
Author: Arun Mishra
Bench: Arun Mishra
ORDER Arun Mishra, J.
1. The present L.P.A. has been filed by the M.P. State Warehousing Corporation aggrieved by the order dated December 14, 1999 passed by the learned single Judge allowing the writ petition of the respondent No. 1 who stood retired w.e.f. October 31, 1992. Direction was given to decide the claims at an early date and to settle the dues to which the respondent No. 1 is entitled.
2. The factual matrix leading to filing of the writ petition indicates that the petitioner (respondent No. 1 herein) was placed under suspension by the appellant w.e.f. April 2, 1988. His suspension continued till October 31, 1992 on which date the suspension was revoked and the petitioner was permitted to retire from service w.e.f. the said date.
3. The dispute arose with respect to the settlement of the claims of the petitioner for the period from April 2, 1988 to October 31, 1992. The petitioner claimed that he shall be deemed to have spent on duty and during that period he would be entitled to increments. The appellant took the plea that they had calculated the retiral benefits of the petitioner on the basis of his last drawn salary which according to them was the subsistence allowance.
4. A departmental enquiry was conducted and the petitioner was imposed punishment of reduction in salary by two stages. During pendency of the enquiry from October 1, 1985 to November 15, 1987 the petitioner was placed under suspension. The appeal filed against imposition of penalty was dismissed by the disciplinary authority. A writ petition was filed before this Court challenging the aforesaid order, being M.P. No. 2860/1988 which was also dismissed.
5. After conclusion of the departmental enquiry, criminal prosecution continued with respect to the same facts which was also the subject matter of the departmental enquiry
6. The learned single Judge held that though the appellant had shown willingness to settle the retiral dues on the basis of pay last drawn, they denied increments for the period for which the petitioner remained under suspension. Therefore, the petitioner would also be entitled to increments for the said period and retiral benefits by calculating last pay drawn on the basis.
7. Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently submitted that it is a case where the petitioner is not entitled to grant of increments during the period of suspension and the retiral dues paid by the appellant were calculated properly. He has further submitted that since criminal case is pending, the impugned direction should not have been issued by the learned single Judge and it would not be possible to recover the pecuniary loss caused. In the submission of the learned counsel in no case the petitioner would be entitled to payment of increments.
8. The learned counsel's own submission is that with respect to the same charges for which criminal case is pending departmental enquiry was conducted and the penalty which was imposed was reduction of pay by two stages in the time scale. The said order has attained finality. The appellant in the departmental enquiry conducted by them had not imposed the penalty of recovery of pecuniary loss. Since the recovery of pecuniary loss, on the basis of same facts on which the criminal case is pending, has not been ordered by the department while imposing the penalty which has attained finality, it is not open to the department now to reopen the departmental enquiry even after conviction by a Criminal Court. That course is not permissible. No rule has been placed before the appellant under the rules to conduct departmental enquiry against an employee who has retired from service. The appellant themselves had settled the claim of the petitioner on the basis of last drawn pay but that has been done without addition of increments. Since the department has not imposed the penalty of withholding of increments, the increments ought to have been added while calculating the benefits which the department has willingly paid to the petitioner/ employee (respondent No. 1).
9. In view of the aforesaid, we do not find any merit in the present appeal. The same is accordingly dismissed summarily.