IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT GWALIOR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ASHISH SHROTI

th

ON THE 12 OF DECEMBER, 2025 WRIT PETITION No. 2399 of 2022 ARJUN BAHADUR THAPA Versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS Appearance:

Mr. Alok Kumar Sharma - Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. G.K. Agrawal - GA for the State.

ORDER The petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging the order, dated

23.12.2021, (Annexure P/1) whereby his representation for payment of pay and allowances for the period of suspension and also for the period he remained out of service on account of imposition of punishment of compulsory retirement, has been rejected. He has prayed for a direction to the respondents to pay him the pay and allowances for the aforesaid period.

2. The facts necessary for decision of this case are that the petitioner, at the relevant time, was working as Assistant Sub-Inspector (Ministerial) and was th posted at 13 Battalion, SAF, Gwalior. On account of allegation of misbehavior with his colleague, the petitioner was charge sheeted. After conclusion of departmental enquiry, the respondent no.5 passed the order, dated 10.02.2021, (Annexure P/2) thereby imposing punishment of compulsory retirement from service. The period of suspension was treated as such. Meaning thereby, the same was treated to be on duty for all purposes, except for pay and allowances.

3. Being aggrieved, the petitioner challenged the punishment order in appeal before respondent no.4 which came to be allowed vide order, dated 30.04.2021 (Annexure P/3). The respondent no.4, though affirmed the findings of guilt recorded against the petitioner, however, looking to his long carrier in the department and also in view of family conditions, set aside the punishment order and directed for his reinstatement in service. The period of suspension was directed to be dealt with separately.

4. Since, the petitioner was let free without any punishment, even though charges were found proved against him, the respondent no.3 took the matter in suo-moto revision under Regulation 270(1) of Police Regulations and after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, passed order, dated 13.07.2021, (Annexure P/6) thereby imposing on him punishment of reduction by one stage in the time scale of pay without cumulative effect which shall not affect his future increments. The petitioner filed a mercy petition against this order of punishment which was rejected by respondent no.2 vide order, dated 03.11.2021 (Annexure P/8). The punishment imposed by respondent no.3 has thus attained finality for want of further challenge.

5. Since, there was no order was passed for regularizing the period of suspension and the period, he remained compulsorily retired, the petitioner submitted representation on 17.04.2021 (Annexure P/9) requesting for payment of full pay and allowances for the said period. After seeking necessary information in this regard from respondent no.5, the petitioner’s representation has been rejected vide impugned order, dated 23.12.2021 (Annexure P/1). The petitioner is thus before this Court challenging the order, dated 23.12.2021.

6. The learned counsel for petitioner challenged the impugned order on the ground that the major penalty proceedings initiated against the petitioner concluded by imposing minor punishment and therefore, the petitioner is entitled to get full pay and allowances for the period of suspension as also the period he remained compulsorily retired from service. In support of his submission, the learned counsel relied upon judgment of this Court in the case of Y.S. Sachan vs. State of M.P. & ors. reported in 2004(1) M.P.H.T. 22 and the Division Bench judgment rendered in the case of State of M.P. & another vs. Shailendra reported in 2011(3) M.P.L.J. 412. He also referred to provisions of FR 54 to say that the petitioner is entitled to get full pay and allowances for the period in question.

7. On the other hand, the learned counsel for respondents supported th