R.L.AGRAWAL Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was a Lower Division Clerk in District Treasury (DT), Raipur. He was served with a charge-sheet dated 17.2.1973 having two charges, First "That he failed to properly check the entries of 8 bills, amounting to Rs.1,18,231.20 p., original entries whereof were raised to the said higher amount without proper attestation, and thus failed to carry out conscientiously the duty entrusted to him thereby causing loss to the Government of the above amount"; and Second "That he failed to properly check the entries of another 12 bills amounting to Rs.47,548.50 p. prepared incorrectly and irregularly and thus failed to maintain devotion to duty expected of him, and causing loss to the Government of the above amount". Later on, a Criminal Case u/Ss. 409, 420, 467, 471 & 120-B IPC was also registered against him and he was taken into custody on 16.3.1973. On 17.3.1973, the petitioner was suspended on account of registration of Criminal Case in which he was later on acquitted on 19.12.1990. In the meantime, the Departmental Enquiry (DE) was also conducted and the Enquiry Officer submitted his report dated 29.12.1977 in which the petitioner was found guilty of the First charge, however, he was exonerated from the Second charge. The Disciplinary Authority, after completion of other formalities, passed the order dated 27.7.1996 imposing penalty of stoppage of one increment with cumulative effect against the petitioner. The Disciplinary Authority also directed that the period of suspension shall be treated as period on duty for the purpose of pension only, it shall not be treated as on duty for any other purpose and the petitioner would not be entitled to any amount for the said period except subsistence allowances which he was already paid.

(2.) Being aggrieved with the above order passed by the Disciplinary Authority, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority, but the appeal was dismissed on 17.6.1997. The petitioner, thereafter, filed Original Application (O.A.) No. 73/1998 before the M.P. State Administrative Tribunal (SAT) in which the petitioner only claimed that the two orders passed by the Statutory Authorities, so far as they relate to the non-payment of difference of salary to the petitioner may be quashed, that means the petitioner did not challenge the order of punishment imposed against him.

(3.) The petitioner mainly raised two contentions before the SAT, first, that the order of suspension invoking jurisdiction under Rule 9 (2) (a) of the Madhya Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966 (CCA Rule) was without jurisdiction, and second, before passing an order regarding non-payment of difference of pay for the period of suspension, the Disciplinary Authority would have issued a show-cause notice to the petitioner, therefore, the order relating to non-payment of monetary benefit for the period of suspension may be quashed.