AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The instant petition seeks review of the final order dated 16/9/2019 passed in W.A.1493/2019 whereby the said writ appeal was finally disposed of
though allowing prayer for grant of full salary for the period of suspension from 5/8/2013 to 29/6/2014 but rejecting the prayer for grant of full salary
for the period of suspension from 26/11/2003 to 30/11/2006.
Learned counsel for the review petitioner Shri O.P. Saxena is heard on the question of admission.
2.1 He has placed reliance on the Apex Court decision in the Case of R.C.Dubey Vs. M.P.E.B. [2013 SCC Online (M.P.) 1004] to contend that
denial of full salary for the period from 25/11/2003 to 31/11/2006 on the ground that Criminal Appeal No. 503/2007 against the acquittal of petitioner of
the charges under the Prevention of Corruption Act is pending and therefore the decision in regard to the said period would be taken after the verdict
in the said criminal appeal, is unlawful.
2.2 Learned counsel for review petitioner submits that decision to grant full salary for the said period of suspension could not have been deferred since
the petitioner had been acquitted of the criminal charge by judgment dated 18/9/2006.
After having heard the learned counsel for review-petitioner on the question of admission this court finds no error apparent on the face of record
for the reasons infra.
3.1 The order under review has considered all the aspects and grounds raised and after placing reliance on the decisions of the Apex Court in Union
of India Vs. Rajiv Kumar (2003 AIR SCW 3507), Union of India Vs. Jaipal Singh (2004) 1 SCC 121, Baldev Singh Vs. Union of India 2006 SCC (L
& S) 35, Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Vs. M.Prabhakar Rao (2011) 8 SCC 155 and the statutory provision of F.R. 54-B of the M.P.
Fundamental Rules, has rendered a conscious decision that since the period of suspension from 5/8/2013 to 29/6/2014 when the petitioner had been
placed under suspension due to contemplated enquiry which ended in exoneration, the said period has to be treated as unjustified for the period of
suspension thereby entitling the petitioner to full salary and allowances.
3.2 While on the other hand, the order under review upheld the decision of the employer as regards period from 25/11/2003 to 31/11/2006 on the basis
of F.R.54-B which bestows ample discretion upon the competent authority to decide the question of justification of grant of salary and allowance and
it's quantum for the period of said suspension. Since the criminal charges ended in acquittal but the criminal appeal continues to be pending the
employer took a conscious decision to keep the question as regards justification or otherwise of the period of suspension to be decided on conclusion
of the criminal appeal. The exercise of this discretion is based on justified reason which cannot be said to be unlawful, arbitrary or whimsical.
In view of the above, the order under review does not suffer from any error apparent on the face of record and therefore the present review
petition stands dismissed, sans cost.
Â