MP HC Gives Acquitted DAVV Employee Half Suspension-Period Pay, Citing His Failure To Seek Revocation And University's Failure To Start Departmental Proceedings

In brief

The question

Whether an employee deemed suspended following detention in a criminal case, and later acquitted without disciplinary proceedings, is entitled to full pay and allowances for the suspension period

The court held

The appeal was partly allowed.

It also directed

The respondent was held entitled to 50% of the benefits granted by the writ court, rather than 100%.

DAVV was directed to calculate the amount within four weeks and pay it to the respondent

01Facts

The respondent, an Assistant Grade-III with Devi Ahilya Vishwavidyalaya (DAVV), was suspended from 14 February 2010 following his arrest in a criminal case concerning the alleged theft of examination answer-sheets.

¶ 2–5, 8

He was acquitted on 16 November 2016 and later sought full salary and consequential benefits for the suspension period.

¶ 2–5, 8

DAVV partly allowed his claim, but the writ court set aside that order and directed payment of the benefits for the period from 14 February 2010 until revocation of suspension.

¶ 2–5, 8

DAVV appealed, challenging the writ court’s reliance on Babulal Jhad v. State of Madhya Pradesh and the award of full benefits

¶ 2–5, 8

02Issues

i.Whether an employee deemed suspended following detention in a criminal case, and later acquitted without disciplinary proceedings, is entitled to full pay and allowances for the suspension period

¶ 5–9

ii.Whether, in the circumstances of this case, the writ court’s direction to grant full benefits should stand, or whether the employee’s conduct and the University’s failure to initiate disciplinary proceedings justified a lesser award

¶ 9–12

03Law Applied

Rule 9(5) of the Madhya Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966 provides that an order of suspension made or deemed to have been made continues until modified or revoked by the competent authority, subject to the specified exceptions and provisions for revocation

¶ 9

The Court relied on the principle stated in Babulal Jhad v. State of Madhya Pradesh, drawing on Umashankar Choubey v. Union of India and other authorities: where a government servant is deemed suspended because of detention exceeding 48 hours, is acquitted, and is reinstated without disciplinary proceedings, full pay and allowances may be payable for the suspension period

¶ 8

The appellant also relied on Union of India v. Jaipal Singh in opposing the claim

¶ 6

Provisions in the judgment · 5 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Indian Penal Code, 1860 Section 380 Section 120 Section 420 Section 467 Section 468

04Reasoning

The Court recognised that the respondent’s acquittal and the absence of disciplinary proceedings supported the principle applied in Babulal Jhad.

¶ 9–11

However, it considered the respondent’s suspension lasting approximately six years and nine months, during which he had not sought its revocation, as well as the absence of evidence that he submitted the monthly certificate required for subsistence allowance.

¶ 9–11

The Court also found DAVV at fault for failing to initiate departmental proceedings despite the serious allegations.

¶ 9–11

Balancing the conduct of both parties, it concluded that awarding the respondent all the benefits ordered by the writ court would not be appropriate, but that he should receive half of those benefits

¶ 9–11