Dr. A.K. Shrivastava vs The State of Madhya Pradesh

Sujoy Paul, J.—Heard. The petitioner is aggrieved by order dated 7.8.2013 (Annexure P-4) in as much as suspension period is treated as spent on duty without pay and allowances. The petitioner was placed under suspension on 14.5.2013. The charge sheet was issued on 19.6.2013. Thereafter, by order dated 7.8.2013 the petitioner was inflicted with punishment of stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect. The singular contention assailing this portion of the order is that once a minor punishment is inflicted on the petitioner, the suspension period has to be treated as spent on duty with all benefits.

Prayer is opposed by the other side.

In the considered opinion of this Court, the question involved in this case is no more res-integra. This Court in Y.S. Sachan Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and Others, opined that when a minor punishment is inflicted on an employee, suspension period must be treated as spent on duty by granting full pay and allowances. The said view was affirmed by the Division Bench in the case reported in State of M.P. and another Vs. Shailendra, . In view of aforesaid legal position, the order dated 7.8.2013 (Annexure P-4) to the extent it deprives the petitioner from pay and allowances for the suspension period is set aside. The respondents are directed to grant pay and allowances for the suspension period within 90 days. The petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. No cost.