Santosh Kumar Gupta Vs State Govt. of… — Writ and Judicial Review | Chhattisgarh HC (2025)

Santosh Kumar Gupta Vs State Govt. of… — Writ and Judicial Review | Chhattisgarh HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Order dated 22.06.2018 (Annexure P/3) quashed to the extent it declined full salary and allowances for the suspension period; petitioner held entitled to salary and allowance for the suspension period in accordance with the Circular dated 23.11.2010. Punishment portion not disturbed (not challenged).

Issue for consideration

Whether a government servant placed under suspension against whom only a minor penalty is inflicted in the departmental enquiry is entitled to full salary and allowances (and not merely suspension allowance) for the suspension period, in view of para 6 of the State circular dated 23.11.2010 and Fundamental Rule 54(B).

Court's answer

Under para 6 of the State circular dated 23.11.2010 read with Fundamental Rule 54(B), a Government Servant placed under suspension upon whom a departmental enquiry ends in minor punishment is entitled to full salary and allowances for the period of suspension.

Ratio / Principle

That part of the impugned order confining the petitioner to suspension allowance instead of full salary and allowances runs contrary to the circular dated 23.11.2010.

Key takeaways

An error was committed by the respondents in declining the claim for salary and allowances during the suspension period; therefore the order dated 22.06.2018 (Annexure P/3) stands quashed to that extent.ratio¶8
The petition is allowed to the limited extent that the petitioner is entitled to salary and allowance for the period of suspension in accordance with the Circular dated 23.11.2010.ratio¶9

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Service law – suspension-period emoluments – minor penalty. Writ petition (Art. 226) by an Up Abhiyanta (Assistant Engineer, Gr. Yantriki Seva Division, Kawardha) against order dated 22.06.2018 which (i) imposed minor penalty of withholding two increments without cumulative effect under Rule 10(4) of the CG Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966, and (ii) restricted him to suspension allowance instead of full salary and allowances for the suspension period per Fundamental Rule 54(B). The petitioner, having meanwhile been promoted (31.12.2020) and retired (28.02.2025), did not challenge the penalty and pressed only the pay claim, placing reliance on WPS No.2959/2022 (Smt. Krishna Verma v. State of C.G.), decided 05.12.2024 by a Coordinate Bench. Reading para 6 of the State circular dated 23.11.2010 with FR 54(B), the Court held that a suspended employee against whom only minor punishment is inflicted is entitled to full salary and allowances for the suspension period; the contrary direction in the impugned order was erroneous. Order dated 22.06.2018 (Annexure P/3) quashed to that extent; petition allowed on the limited relief. (Deepak Kumar Tiwari, J.) [NAFR]

1

2025:CGHC:47703

PRIYANKA VERMA

Digitally signed by PRIYANKA VERMA Date: 2025.09.18 17:06:05 +0530

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

WPS No. 8824 of 2019

1 - Santosh Kumar Gupta S/o Late Shri Padum Nath Gupta Aged About 56 Years Up Abhiyanta Gramin Yantriki Seva Division Kawardha, District Kabirdham Chhattisgarh

... Petitioner

versus

1 - State Govt. of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Panchayat And Gramin Vikash Department Ministry, Atal Nagar, Capital Complex, Mahanadi Bhavan, Police Station Rakhi, New Raipur Chhattisgarh

2 - Secretary, State Government of Chhattisgarh, General Administration Department, Mahanadi Bhavan, New Raipur Chhattisgarh

3 - Chief Executive Officer, District Panchayat, Kabirdham Chhattisgarh

... Respondents

For Petitioner : Mr. Vinod Sharma appears on behalf of Mr. Ajay Shrivastava, Advocate For : Mr. Ritesh Giri, PL

Respondent/State

Hon'ble Shri Justice Deepak Kumar Tiwari

2

Order On Board

17/09/2025

1. This Writ Petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenging the order dated 22.06.2018, whereby the petitioner was imposed a minor penalty of withholding two increments without cumulative effect in view of the provisions contained in Rule 10(4) of the CG Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966 and was also not granted full salary and allowances for the period of suspension, as per the provisions of Fundamental Rule- 54 (B).

2. At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that during the pendency of the Petition, the petitioner has already been promoted to the post of Assistant Engineer vide order dated 31.12.2020 and has subsequently retired from the said post on 28.02.2025. Consequently, the petitioner is not challenging the order of punishment and is limiting his relief to the extent that although a minor punishment was imposed, the full salary and allowances during the period of suspension have not been granted in his favour by the impugned order. In this regard, counsel for the petitioner places reliance on the judgment passed in WPS No.2959/2022 (Smt. Krishna Verma vs. State of C.G. and others) vide order dated 05.12.2024 by the Coordinate Bench.

3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submits that in the impugned order, the issue of salary during the suspension period has also been decided; therefore, this petition deserves to be dismissed.

3

4. I have heard learned counsel for parties and perused the documents placed on record.

5. The circular dated 23.11.2010 issued the by State; particularly, para 6 is reproduced herein-below for reference:-

“6. मुख्यशास्ति��हे�ुसंस्ति��वि�भागीयजाँचमेंयवि�वि�सी वि�लंवि��शास�ीयसे��परजॉचउपरां�लघुशास्ति��ही अधि%रोविप��ीजा�ीहै�ोउस�ावि�लं��औधिचत्यपूर्ण, �हीमा�ा जास��ा।अ�ःराज्यशास��ेवि�र्ण,यलिलयाहैवि�ऐसेमामलोंमें सं�ंधि%�शास�ीयसे��ीवि�लं��अ�धि% �ोमूलभू�वि�यम54-�ी�ेपरिरप्रेक्ष्यमें��,व्यअ�धि% मान्य�रवि�लं��अ�धि% �े संपूर्ण, �े��-भत्ते (शास�ीयसे��ेवि�लं��अ�धि% मेंभुग�ा� वि�एगए "जी��वि��ा,हभत्ते" �ीराशिश�ासमायोज��र) वि�ए जाएं।यहवि�र्ण,यइसज्ञाप��ेप्र�ाशिश�हो�े�ीधि�शि�सेलागू होगा��ाजिज�प्र�रर्णोंमेंवि�र्ण,यलिलयाजाचु�ाहै, �ेपु�ः�ही खोलेजाएंगे।"

6. A bare perusal of the circular would make it clear that if a Government Servant is placed under suspension and in a departmental enquiry, minor punishment is inflicted, in such a situation, such Government servant would be entitled to get the full salary and allowances against the period of suspension according to the provisions of Fundamental Rule 54 (B).

7. In the present case, the petitioner was placed under suspension and later on, a penalty of stoppage of two increments without cumulative effect was imposed. However, regarding the salary during the suspension period, it was ordered that the petitioner would receive only the suspension allowance and not the full salary and allowances. It appears that the said part of the order is against the circular dated 23.11.2010,

4

which clearly states that if a minor penalty is imposed on a Government

servant, he would be entitled to get full salary and allowances.

8. In view of the above, in the opinion of this Court, an error has been committed by the respondents in declining the claim of the petitioner with regard to salary and allowances during the suspension period; therefore, the order dated 22.06.2018 (Annexure P/3) is hereby quashed to that extent.

9. Accordingly, the instant Petition is allowed only with regard to the relief that the petitioner shall be entitled to get salary and allowance for the period of suspension in accordance with the Circular dated 23.11.2010.

Sd/-

(Deepak Kumar Tiwari) Judge

Priyanka