IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT GWALIOR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANAND SINGH BAHRAWAT th ON THE 26 OF FEBRUARY, 2026 WRIT PETITION No. 22393 of 2017 BHUPAL SINGH YADAV Versus CHAIRMAN MADHYA PRADESH MADHYA KCHETRA VIDUYAT VITRAN CO. LTD. AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri Rudra Pratap Singh Kaurav – counsel for petitioner.

Shri Rajendra Bhargav – counsel for respondent No.4.

ORDER

This petition, under Article 226 of Constitution of India, has been filed seeking the following relief (s):

“(i) It is therefore, prayed that Writ Petition may kindly be allowed.

(ii) Order vide annexure p-1 dated 24.6.2017 may kindly be quashed and respondents may kindly be directed to pay all the stopped arrear for the period of suspension along with interest.

(iii) Cost of the petition may kindly be granted.”

2. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that by order dated 23.12.2016 the services of petitioner have been suspended, however, the suspension was revoked by order dated 9.2.2017. Then, the charge sheet was issued by order dated 24.6.2017 and the completion of enquiry culminated into imposition of minor punishment. It is further submitted that though petitioner is satisfied with the minor punishment of censure inflicted on him, however, there is a denial made by respondents to give him salary for the suspension period which becomes a major punishment. Learned counsel for petitioner relied upon the judgment passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Kanhaiya Lal Parmar v. State of M.P. & Others, reported in 2006 (2) MPLJ 522. Learned counsel for the petitioner also relied upon the judgment in Y.S. Sachan v. State of M.P. & Others, reported in 2004 (1) MPHT 22, to contend that petitioner is entitled to salary for the period of suspension.

3. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent/State submits that the petitioner has rightly been suspended and as a consequence of the suspension, the petitioner is not entitled to salary for the period of suspension on the principle of “no work, no pay.” He supported the impugned order and prayed for dismissal of the petition.

4. Heard the learned counsel for parties and perused the record.

5. Perusal of the record reveals that by order dated 23.12.2016 the services of petitioner have been suspended, however, the suspension was revoked by order dated 9.2.2017. Then, the charge sheet was issued by order dated 24.6.2017 and the completion of enquiry culminated into imposition of minor punishment. Though petitioner is satisfied with the minor punishment of censure inflicted on him, however, there is a denial made by respondents to give him salary for the suspension period which becomes a major punishment.

6. This Court may draw assistance from two Supreme Court decisions in the case of (1996) 11 SCC 603 (Ranchhodji Chaturji Thakore vs. Superintendent Engineer, Gujarat Electricity Board, Himmatnagar (Gujarat) and another) and (2004) 1 SCC 121 (Union of India and others vs. Jaipal Singh). The relevant extracts of these judgments are reproduced below for ready reference:

(1996) 11 SCC 603 “3. The reinstatement of the petitioner into the service has aready been ordered by the High Court. The only question is whether he is entitled to back wages. It was his conduct of involving himself in the crime that was taken into account for his not being in service of the respondent. Consequent upon his acquittal, he is entitled to reinstatement for the reason that his service was terminated on the basis of the conviction by operation of proviso to the statutory rules applicable to the situation. The question of back wages would be considered only if the respondents have taken action by way of disciplinary proceedings and the action was found to be unsustainable in law and he was unlawfully prevented from discharging the duties. In that context, his conduct becomes relevant. Each case requires to be considered in its own backdrop. In this case, since the petitioner had involved himself in a crime, though he was