RAM NARESH TIWARI Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has filed the present petition challenging the orders dated 25.06.2009, 15.12.2009 and 26.02.2013 passed by respondent No. 4, 3 and 1 thereby denying the salary to the petitioner for the suspension period.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is working on the post of Accountant in the School Education Department. While, he was posted as Accountant in the Government Higher Secondary School of Excellence, Amarpatan, District Satna, a false complaint has been made against the petitioner. On the basis of the said complaint, the petitioner was placed under suspension vide order dated 15.11.2008. The petitioner thereafter submitted a representation against the said suspension order stating that there was no justification to place him under suspension. Thereafter, respondent No. 4 had passed an order dated 25.06.2009 revoking the order of suspension and reinstated the petitioner in service. However, while revoking the suspension it was directed by respondent No. 4 that the petitioner will not be given salary for the period of suspension on the basis of principle of "no work no pay", however, the period during suspension shall be treated on duty for all other purposes. Against the said suspension order, the petitioner has preferred an appeal before respondent No. 4 on 23.07.2009. The said appeal was rejected by respondent No. 3 vide order dated 15.12009 thereby confirming the order passed by the Collector. The petitioner thereafter preferred a second appeal before respondent No. 1. The said appeal was returned to the petitioner with a direction that the appeal should be preferred through the departmental head. Accordingly, the petitioner has submitted an appeal through respondent No. 2, however, the said appeal has been dismissed by respondent No. 1 vide order dated 26.02013 on the ground that the minor penalty was correctly imposed by respondent No. 4 and, therefore, there was no force in appeal. Being aggrieved by the said orders, the petitioner has filed the present petition.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that the order by which the petitioner has denied the salary for the suspension period is illegal and arbitrary. He submits that when the order of suspension was revoked, the petitioner is entitled to get the salary for the said period. He submits that the appellate order is a non speaking order and does not reflect any application of mind. He further submits that the petitioner is entitled to get the salary for the said suspension period as per F.R. 54-B. He further relied on the judgement passed by this Court in the case of Y.S. Sachan Vs. State of M.P. and others, (2003) 4 MPLJ 219.