VYAS NARAYAN PANDEY Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The limited grievance in the instant case is grant of entire consequential benefits during the period of suspension of the petitioner between 13.01.2005 to 24.06.2006 as a consequence of the exoneration in the Departmental Enquiry (in short, DE) and disciplinary enquiry initiated ending up with no punishment inflicted upon the petitioner.

(2.) The facts of the case is that, the petitioner while working as Headmaster of the Govt. Primary School Chikhali was placed under suspension on 17.01.2005 contemplating DE and his suspension period continued up till 24.06.2006. Meanwhile, DE which was conducted did not find the petitioner guilty of the charge which was levelled against him and the impugned order was finally passed on 01.05.2008 wherein the period of absence from duty in between 11.01.2005 to 13.01.2005 was declared as leave without pay. However, the period of suspension has been ordered to be treated as period spent on duty, but he was not entitled for any monetary benefits except for the subsistence allowance that he has been paid. It is this order which is under challenge in the present writ petition.

(3.) According to petitioner, the aforesaid order cannot be construed as order of punishment as no punishment has been imposed against the petitioner in the DE. There is no finding to the extent of the charges which have been levelled against him to have been proved. The impugned order is also bad in law in the light of the circular of the State Govt. dated 211.2010 whereby the State Govt. had taken a policy decision that where departmental proceedings against a suspended employee for the imposition of a major misconduct finally end with the imposition of a minor punishment, he would be entitled for the entire wages and allowances for the period of suspension. He also relied upon the decision of MP High Court in case of Y.S. Sachan Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors, (2004) 1 MPHT 22 wherein under similar facts and circumstances, the High Court has ordered for grant of entire pay and allowances to the employee after adjusting the subsistence allowance that he has received. The petitioner has prayed for similar relief.