GOVIND PRASAD SHARMA Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition, under Article 226 of Constitution of India, has been filed seeking the following relief (s):

(2.) Learned counsel for petitioner submits that petitioner was appointed to the post of Assistant Grade-III and while he was working on the said post at Govt. Boys H.S. School, Ganjbasoda, District Vidisha, he was suspended vide order dtd. 28/6/1997 on the ground that in a matter relating to misappropriation of scholarship money, a challan was filed against petitioner before the Court of J.M.F.C. in Criminal Case No. 291/96. During the period of suspension, petitioner was attached to the office of the Block Education Officer, Ganjbasoda. Thereafter, petitioner submitted a representation for revocation of suspension order on the ground that more than three years had elapsed and even after framing of charges, no order had been passed by the concerned authority. After considering the said representation, respondent No. 2 revoked the suspension vide order dtd. 18/1/2008. It is further submitted that thereafter petitioner was acquitted in the criminal case by the learned Court below vide judgment dtd. 11/3/2011 (Annexure P/4). It is further submitted that a departmental proceeding was initiated against petitioner on the same set of charges. However, the departmental inquiry and proceedings were also dropped by respondent No. 2 without imposing any penalty, vide order dtd. 25/2/2014 (Annexure P/1). Despite this, the period of suspension was treated on the principle of "no work, no pay" and full salary for the suspension period i.e. from 28/6/1997 to 13/2/2008 was denied. Thereafter, petitioner submitted a representation before respondent No. 2 seeking payment of full salary for the aforesaid period of suspension, which was rejected vide order dtd. 25/2/2014. It is further submitted that the suspension is contrary to the provisions of Fundamental Rule 54-B(3) and (4) and that the disciplinary proceedings were dropped by the respondents themselves and no penalty was imposed against the petitioner. Learned counsel for petitioner relied upon the judgment passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Kanhaiya Lal Parmar v. State of M.P. & Others, reported in 2006 (2) MPLJ 522. Learned counsel for the petitioner also relied upon the judgment in Y.S. Sachan v. State of M.P. & Others, reported in 2004 (1) MPHT 22, to contend that petitioner is entitled to salary for the period of suspension.

(3.) Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent/State submits that the petitioner has rightly been suspended and as a consequence of the suspension, the petitioner is not entitled to salary for the period of suspension on the principle of "no work, no pay." He supported the impugned order and prayed for dismissal of the petition.