Vijay Kumar Sharma vs M P M K V V Com Ltd

Headnote:(A) Fundamental Rule 54-B - Rule 9 of M.P. Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966 - Suspension of government servant - Payment of full pay and allowances for suspension period - Entitlement upon acquittal in criminal proceedings - Where the rules mandate suspension upon the filing of a challan for corruption or moral turpitude, such suspension is justified at the time of the order and cannot be termed as wholly unjustified merely upon subsequent acquittal - Reinstatement or retirement during suspension - The competent authority has the discretion to decide whether the period of suspension was wholly unjustified for the purpose of granting full pay and allowances - Subsequent acquittal does not ipso facto entitle an employee to claim back wages or full salary for the intervening period. (Paras 7, 9, 10)

(B) Principle of 'No Work No Pay' - An employee involved in criminal proceedings disables himself from rendering services due to incarceration or trial; the employer cannot be held liable for salary during the period the employee was kept out of service due to reasons attributable to the employee's own involvement in misconduct, provided the prosecution was not at the behest of the department. (Paras 17, 18)

Facts of the case:
An employee was placed under suspension following the filing of a criminal case involving corruption. During the pendency of the trial, the employee retired on superannuation. Subsequent to retirement, the trial court acquitted the employee. The competent authority treated the suspension period as duty for all purposes except for pay and allowances. The employee challenged this order, seeking full salary and interest for the period of suspension.

Findings of Court:
The suspension was mandated by the statutory rules because the criminal charges involved corruption. Therefore, the suspension was justified at the time it was imposed. The competence to decide if a suspension was "wholly unjustified" rests with the authority, and a subsequent acquittal does not automatically make the suspension unjustified.

Issues: Whether an employee acquitted in a criminal case is automatically entitled to full pay and allowances for the period of suspension, specifically where the suspension was mandated by service rules.

Ratio Decidendi: Pursuant to the applicable service rules, full pay and allowances for the suspension period are granted only if the competent authority deems the suspension "wholly unjustified." Since the rules mandate suspension upon the filing of a challan for corruption, such an order is considered justified. Acquittal in the subsequent criminal proceedings does not ipso facto entitle the employee to back wages, as the reason for absence was attributable to the employee's own involvement in the criminal case, and the employer was not responsible for keeping him away from his duties.

Result: Writ Appeal is hereby dismissed.

Legal Category Hierarchy

1. Suspension following criminal prosecution for corruption — Acquittal — Claim for full salary for suspension period. (Para 1 , 2 )

2. Appellant argued acquittal entitles full pay; respondent argued suspension justified under mandatory rule, discretion properly exercised. (Para 3 , 4 )

3. Writ appeal dismissed — Impugned order affirmed — Appellant not entitled to salary for suspension period. (Para 23 )

4. Is a government servant automatically entitled to full pay and allowances for the suspension period upon acquittal in criminal proceedings?

No. Entitlement to full pay requires the competent authority to form an opinion that the suspension was wholly unjustified; acquittal alone does not create such entitlement. (Para 7 , 10 )

5. Can suspension be considered wholly unjustified when it was mandated by a rule requiring suspension upon filing of a corruption charge?

No. Suspension under the mandatory proviso to Rule 9(1)(b) of the M.P. Civil Services (CCA) Rules, 1966 cannot be treated as wholly unjustified, even if the employee is later acquitted. (Para 8 , 9 )

6. What is the rationale for vesting the competent authority with discretion to deny full pay for the suspension period even after acquittal?

To maintain discipline in administration and protect public interest, as laying down an inflexible rule of full pay in every exoneration would undermine discipline and jeopardise public interest. (Para 14 , 16 )

7. Is an employer liable to pay salary for a period when the employee's absence from duty was due to the employee's own involvement in a criminal case?

No. If the employer was in no way responsible for keeping the employee away from duties, saddling the employer with salary liability would violate the 'no work, no pay' principle. (Para 17 , 18 )

8. Does acquittal in a criminal case ipso facto entitle an employee to back wages for the suspension period?

No. Reinstatement following acquittal does not automatically confer back wages; the competent authority must decide the matter based on the facts and circumstances of each case. (Para 19 , 20 )

ORDER :

Anand Singh Bahrawat, J.

By way of instant appeal, filed under Section 2 (1) of the Madhya Pradesh Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyaypeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005, challenge is made to the order dated 15.12.2025 passed in W.P.No.2397/2025; whereby, writ petition preferred by petitioner/appellant was dismissed claiming the benefit of full salary for the period from 25.1.2018 to 30.4.2021 during which he remained under suspension and praying for interest on the aforesaid amount.

2. In nut shell the facts giving to the instant appeal are that initially appellant was appointed on the post of Store Assistant in the Madhya Pradesh Vidhyut Mandal now know as Madhya Pradesh Madhya Kshetra Vidhyut Vitaran Company Ltd. (MPMKVV Com. Td) on 3.4.1982. At the relevant point of time he was working as Junior Engineer at Gwalior Division of the respondent/Company. During the service tenure, a criminal case was registered at Special Police Establishment (SPE), Gwalior against present appellant along with other co-accused persons namely Vikash Kesarwani, Ajay Nayak and Shashikan Parashar on 18.1.2018 bearing crime No.257/2016 under Section 7, 13(1) read with Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (PC Act) and Section 120 of I.P.C. Thereafter, he was produced before the Court of First Additional Sessions Judge/ Special Judge, Datia wherein a case was registered bearing case No. SC LOK NO.01/2018. Thereafter, as per instructions issued by the General Administration Department, Bhopal vide letter No. F-11/58/98/1-10 Bhopal appellant was placed under suspension with immediate effect vide order dated 25.1.2018 and he was attached to the City Circle, Gwalior. After recording the statement of prosecution, learned Trial Court vide judgment dated 29.7.2022 was acquitted all the accused persons along with appellant. During the pendency of the case, appellant stood retired on 30.4.2021. Thereafter, appellant submitted a representation before the respondent authority for regularation of period his suspension. Accordingly, vide order 10.2.2023 the period of suspension from 25.1.2018 to 30.4.2021 has been treated to on duty for all purposes except for pay and allowances for said period. The said order was challenged in writ petition which was dismissed by impugned order dated 15.12.2025, hence the present appeal.

3. Learned counsel for appellant submits that the suspension of appellant is totally unjustified because he was suspended on account of criminal case in which he was subsequently acquitted and the reasons, account of which he was placed under suspension, now does exist, therefore, he is entitled for full pay and allowances for the period in which he was placed under suspension. It was argued that by counsel for appellant that learned Single Judge has erred in law as well as on facts in holding that appellant is not entitled to full salary for the period of suspension, despite the fact that the appellant was acquitted in the criminal proceedings. As the appellant was falsely implicated in the crime in which he was acquitted, therefore, as per Fundamental Rule 54-B (3) he is entitled to get full pay and allowances for the intervening period.

4. Learned counsel for respondents supported the impugned order passed by learned writ Court and stated that appellant was involved in criminal case because of his own acts and Department was not instrumental in his prosecution, therefore, suspension on account of the same, cannot be said to be unjustified. Under F.R.54-B, it is for the Competent Authority to form an opinion whether the suspension of employee is justified or not and if the authority comes on conclusion that suspension is totally unjustified, then only employee is held to be entitled for pay and allowances for intervening period. In the present case, the order of suspension cannot be said as unjustified, therefore, appellant is not entitled for any pay and allowances for the period in which he was placed under suspension.

5. Heard the co

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(MP) 688

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT GWALIOR
ANAND PATHAK, ANAND SINGH BAHRAWAT, JJ.
Vijay Kumar Sharma - Appellant
Versus
M P M K V V Com Ltd and Others - Respondents
Writ Appeal No. 184 of 2026
Decided On : 23-01-2026

Acquittal in a criminal case does not automatically entitle a suspended employee to full pay and allowances if the suspension was mandated by service rules or if the competent authority determines the suspension was not wholly unjustified.

Legal Category Hierarchy

Table of Contents

4. Is a government servant automatically entitled to full pay and allowances for the suspension period upon acquittal in criminal proceedings?

5. Can suspension be considered wholly unjustified when it was mandated by a rule requiring suspension upon filing of a corruption charge?

6. What is the rationale for vesting the competent authority with discretion to deny full pay for the suspension period even after acquittal?

7. Is an employer liable to pay salary for a period when the employee's absence from duty was due to the employee's own involvement in a criminal case?

8. Does acquittal in a criminal case ipso facto entitle an employee to back wages for the suspension period?

Judicial Analysis

2026 Supreme(MP) 688

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT GWALIORANAND PATHAK, ANAND SINGH BAHRAWAT, JJ.Vijay Kumar Sharma - AppellantVersusM P M K V V Com Ltd and Others - RespondentsWrit Appeal No. 184 of 2026Decided On : 23-01-2026

Acquittal in a criminal case does not automatically entitle a suspended employee to full pay and allowances if the suspension was mandated by service rules or if the competent authority determines the suspension was not wholly unjustified.

Legal Category Hierarchy

Table of Contents

4. Is a government servant automatically entitled to full pay and allowances for the suspension period upon acquittal in criminal proceedings?

5. Can suspension be considered wholly unjustified when it was mandated by a rule requiring suspension upon filing of a corruption charge?

6. What is the rationale for vesting the competent authority with discretion to deny full pay for the suspension period even after acquittal?

7. Is an employer liable to pay salary for a period when the employee's absence from duty was due to the employee's own involvement in a criminal case?

8. Does acquittal in a criminal case ipso facto entitle an employee to back wages for the suspension period?

Cases Referred (6)

Judicial Analysis

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT GWALIOR
ANAND PATHAK, ANAND SINGH BAHRAWAT, JJ.
Vijay Kumar Sharma - Appellant
Versus
M P M K V V Com Ltd and Others - Respondents
Writ Appeal No. 184 of 2026
Decided On : 23-01-2026