Girraj Singh Dandotiya vs State of M.P.

Sujoy Paul, J.—Heard.

Petitioner has assailed the punishment order dated 27-02-2013 whereby the punishment of stoppage of two increments without cumulative effect is imposed on the petitioner. Disciplinary authority opined that suspension period shall be treated as spent on duty but petitioner shall get only subsistence allowance for the said period. Punishment order was unsuccessfully challenged in appeal and the appellate authority by order dated 15-10-2013 affirmed the order of punishment.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegations against the petitioner are incorrect. He submits that mistake and negligence was not on the part of petitioner but was on part of those employees who were required to check the symbol before final printing of the ballot paper. In addition, it is submitted that ultimate punishment imposed is a minor punishment and therefore, the suspension period should be treated as spent on duty for all purposes including grant of pay and allowance for the said period.

Prayer is opposed by Shri Raghvendra Dixit, Government Advocate.

With the consent of parties matter is heard finally.

The allegation against the petitioner is that because of his negligence, for two candidates symbol of "Match Box" was allotted. Because of this negligence election had to be postponed. Petitioner filed his reply vide Annexure P/4 and admitted this allegation. He submitted that because of mistake, two candidates were given same sign but it was not done deliberately. There is no defence in the reply Annexure P/4 that said mistake was done by some other officials who were required to check it before printing. In other words, the arguments advanced by Shri Saxena before this Court was not the defence in Annexure P/4. In the opinion of this Court, petitioner has admitted his flaw/negligence in Annexure P/4. After admission of this fact, there was no occasion for the authority to conduct a full fledged domestic enquiry. Thus, no flaw can be found on the procedural part of domestic enquiry. So far proportionality of punishment is concerned, in the opinion of this Court petitioner is inflicted with very small punishment which by no stretch of imagination can be said to be excessive or disproportionate. Thus there is no reason to interfere on the punishment imposed. The punishment order and appellate order to this extent are upheld.

Second aspect is whether petitioner is entitled for pay and allowance for suspension period. In the opinion of this Court this point is no more res integra. In Deena Nath Tiwari Vs. Dr. Hari Singh Gour Vishwavidyalaya, and Y.S. Sachan Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and Others, , it is opined by this Court that when ultimate punishment is minor punishment, said period must be treated as spent on duty. Said view is followed by the Division Bench of this Court (Indore Bench) in State of M.P. and another Vs. Shailendra, .

Considering the aforesaid, in the opinion of this Court, disciplinary authority has erred in not granting pay and allowance to the petitioner for the suspension period. To this extent, petition deserves to be allowed. Accordingly, impugned orders Annexures P/1 and P/2 are set aside to the extent petitioner was deprived from pay and allowance for suspension period. Rest of the order is upheld. Respondents are directed to grant pay and allowance for the said period within 90 days.

Petition is partly allowed.

No costs.