Court rules suspension period as duty period, orders payment of arrears with interest for delay.
In a significant judgment delivered by the Madhya Pradesh High Court, Justice Anand Singh Bahrawat ruled in favor of Govind Prasad Sharma, a government servant, declaring that the period of his suspension should be treated as duty period, thus entitling him to full salary and allowances for that duration. The decision came after Sharma was acquitted in a criminal case and a departmental inquiry concluded without any penalty.
Govind Prasad Sharma, who was appointed as Assistant Grade-III and was working at Government Boys H.S. School, Ganjbasoda, was suspended on June 28, 1997, following allegations of misappropriation of scholarship money. Subsequently, a criminal case was filed against him, and during his suspension, he was attached to the office of the Block Education Officer, Ganjbasoda. The suspension was revoked on January 18, 2008, and Sharma was acquitted in the criminal proceedings on March 11, 2011. The departmental proceedings initiated against him on similar charges were eventually dropped without any penalty on February 25, 2014.
Despite being exonerated, the period of Sharma's suspension was treated under the principle of "no work, no pay", denying him full salary for the suspension period from June 28, 1997, to February 13, 2008. Sharma's representation to claim full salary was rejected by the respondents, leading him to file a writ petition in the High Court.
The High Court, referencing Fundamental Rule 54-B(3) and (4), held that in cases where a criminal prosecution initiated by the department results in acquittal and the departmental inquiry concludes without penalty, the suspension period must be treated as a duty period. Consequently, the Court directed the respondents to pay Sharma the arrears of salary and allowances for the suspension period, along with any consequential benefits. The judgment also stipulated that if the payment is delayed beyond the prescribed period, an interest rate of 6% per annum would be applicable from the date of entitlement until the actual payment is made.
This decision underscores the principle that an employee cannot be deprived of salary and benefits when both criminal and departmental proceedings conclude without establishing any fault or penalty against them. The judgment serves as a precedent for similar cases, reinforcing the rights of government employees to fair treatment in suspension scenarios.
Bottom Line:
Fundamental Rule 54-B(3) and (4) - Government servant's suspension period must be treated as duty period if criminal proceedings initiated by the department result in acquittal and departmental inquiry concludes without penalty.
Statutory provision(s): Fundamental Rule 54-B(3), Fundamental Rule 54-B(4), Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
