LAKHAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner before this Court, an employee serving the Home Department, was placed under suspension while in service by order dated 17/3/2012 for allegedly asking bribe, however, he was acquitted by the judgment of acquittal dated 11/12/2013. The other aspect of the case is that he was also subjected to Departmental Enquiry at the same time and finally an order was passed on 5/7/2016 inflicting a minor punishment ie., stoppage of one increment without cumulative effect. The petitioner is aggrieved by order dated 10/11/2015 (Annexure P/7) passed by the Superintendent of Police, Ujjain by which he was denied benefit of full pay and allowance during the period the petitioner was under suspension ie., from 17/3/2012 to 28/12/2013.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued before this Court that the petitioner is entitled for full pay and allowance in the light of Fundamental Rule 54. He has argued that the petitioner has been honorably acquitted and he has been inflicted with minor punishment in Departmental Enquiry and, therefore, the question of depriving him for the benefit of full salary for the aforesaid period of suspension does not arise.

(3.) On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent ­ State has argued before this Court that the petitioner was not only prosecuted but was also proceeded ahead in Departmental Enquiry and it is not a case of unjustified suspension by the Department and, therefore, the Competent Authority was justified in restricting the pay of the petitioner only to the payment of subsistence allowance for the period he was under suspension. Learned counsel for the respondent has prayed for dismissal of the present Writ Petition. Heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the record.