IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT GWALIOR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANAND PATHAK &

HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANAND SINGH BAHRAWAT rd ON THE 23 OF JANUARY, 2026 WRIT APPEAL No. 184 of 2026 VIJAY KUMAR SHARMA Versus M P M K V V COM LTD AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri Ravi Bhargav - Advocate for Appellant.

Shri Ravi Jain – Advocate for respondent No.2 and 3.

ORDER

As per Justice Anand Singh Bahrawat:

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 Fundametal 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 authori