CHARAN SINGH SHAKYA Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SHRI Khedkar is heard on admission. In this petition, petitioner has prayed for reinstating him on revocation of suspension to a place from where he was suspended. He prayed for other benefits arising out of suspension and also compensation. Petitioner has also prayed for setting aside the FIR Annexure -P/2.

(2.) So far relief 7(a) is concerned, a Division Bench of this Court in : 2005 (4) MPHT 352 [Kendriya Vidayalaya Sangathan and others Vs. Dr. R.K. Shashtri and another] held that on revocation, an employee should be reinstated at the place from where he was placed under suspension.

(3.) AS an interim measure, it is directed that respondents shall reinstate the petitioner at the place from where he was under suspension. So far, the remaining benefits of suspension period is concerned, under fundamental rules the competent authority is required to pass an order as to how suspension period will be treated. If the said authority intends to proceed against the petitioner departmentally, it will be open for the said authority to pass appropriate order after completion of the disciplinary proceedings. If no disciplinary proceedings or criminal case is pending or contemplated, it is obligatory for the said authority to pass appropriate orders to decide as to how suspension period would be treated. Accordingly, the competent authority is directed to pass a suitable order as per fundamental rules to decide as to how suspension period would be treated. The relief 7(d) prayed for is misconceived, no compensation for mental agony can be granted to the petitioner in a writ petition. Accordingly, relief 7(d) is not tenable and is rejected. So far, relief 7(b) regarding FIR is concerned, Shri Nakul Khedkar learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner was reinstated on 05/05/2012 and on the same date FIR Annexure -P/2 is lodged, which is not sustainable. He relies on criteria 7 mentioned by Supreme Court in : 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 (State of Haryana and others Vs. Bhajanlal and others).