Where only a warning is issued, the suspension period must count as duty with salary and increments.

The petitioner, a Secretary at Gram Panchayat Vishanpur, Janpad Panchayat Kurwai, was issued a departmental charge-sheet on 25 August 2022.

A departmental enquiry was ordered on 5 November 2022, and the Inquiry Officer submitted the enquiry report on 1 December 2022.

By order dated 21 December 2022, the respondents did not impose any statutory minor or major penalty but issued only a warning.

The petitioner sought quashing of the order to the extent that it denied him salary for the suspension period, after adjustment of the subsistence allowance already paid, along with consequential increments and allowances.

The respondents opposed the petition, primarily contending that it was filed after substantial delay, nearly four years after the impugned order.

Whether an employee who, after departmental proceedings initiated for alleged misconduct, receives only a warning and no minor or major penalty is entitled to full salary for the suspension period after adjustment of the subsistence allowance?

Whether the delay in filing the writ petition disentitled the petitioner from claiming arrears and consequential salary benefits?

Whether the suspension period was required to be treated as duty for the purpose of annual increments and other admissible allowances?

The Court applied Fundamental Rules 53, 54, 54-A and 54-B, which govern subsistence allowance, treatment of the suspension period, and payment of salary and allowances upon conclusion of disciplinary proceedings.

It relied on Y.S. Sachan v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Others, 2004 (1) M.P.H.T. 22, holding that where disciplinary proceedings culminate only in a minor penalty, denial of full salary for the suspension period requires proper justification and that the suspension may be treated as wholly unjustified.

It also followed the Division Bench decision in State of M.P. & Another v. Shailendra, ILR (2011) M.P. 2315, which recognized entitlement to full salary where only a minor penalty was imposed and no proper opportunity or reasons existed for denying the benefit.

The Court further applied the principle in M.R. Gupta v. Union of India, (1995) 5 SCC 628, as reiterated in Rushibhai Jagdishchandra Pathak v. Bhavnagar Municipal Corporation, SLP (C) No. 2946 of 2022, that incorrect payment of salary gives rise to a recurring cause of action during the employee’s service, although arrears remain subject to limitation.

The Court found that the departmental proceedings did not result in any statutory minor or major penalty; the petitioner was merely warned, and a warning is not a penalty under the Madhya Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966.

Applying Y.S. Sachan and Shailendra, the Court held that denial of salary was even less justified where no penalty had been imposed.

The petitioner was therefore entitled to salary for the suspension period, subject to deduction of the subsistence allowance already received.

The Court rejected the delay objection because the continuing denial of salary and annual increments constituted a recurring cause of action, while recognizing that recovery of past arrears would remain subject to limitation principles.

Consequently, the suspension period was required to be treated as duty for annual increments and other admissible allowances.

The respondents were directed to pay the petitioner salary for the suspension period after deducting the subsistence allowance already paid.

They were further directed to treat the suspension period as duty and grant the petitioner annual increments and other admissible allowances.