The Allahabad High Court held that an employee placed under suspension during the period of detention cannot be denied wages upon acquittal in the absence of any disciplinary enquiry and bail during the period of suspension and an employee who has been suspended during the period of detention needs to prove that he was not gainfully employed during such period.
Brief Facts:
The petitioner, working as a Routine Grade Clerk was implicated in connection with a criminal offence registered under Sections 396, 412, 201 & 120-B I.P.C and remained in jail until he was finally released pursuant to the judgment of the acquittal passed by the Sessions Court. During the period of detention, the petitioner was placed under suspension. Pursuant to his acquittal in the criminal case, he was reinstated.
Contentions of the Petitioner:
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that since the respondents did not proceed to hold a disciplinary inquiry by holding departmental proceedings against the petitioner and the petitioner was simply placed under suspension on account of his detention in jail, upon his reinstatement with the revocation of the suspension order, petitioner became entitled to salary for the period he remained under suspension. It is submitted that the petitioner has been finally acquitted in the criminal case then on the principle that the petitioner has been restrained under circumstances beyond his control and also there being order of suspension, from discharging his duties as a clerk in the institution, the respondents could not have denied payment of salary to the petitioner for the period in question.
Contentions of the Respondent:
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent contended that the department cannot be blamed for the petitioner not being permitted to discharge his duty as admittedly petitioner was under detention and as per the relevant service rules he was required to be placed under suspension. It was further urged that even though the petitioner has been acquitted every acquittal is not an honourable acquittal so as to make him entitled to the payment of salary for the period he had remained under a lawful detention.
Observations of the court:
The court stated that the petitioner was placed under simple suspension because of his detention. There was no department/ disciplinary inquiry conducted against the petitioner for placing him under suspension. Further, it was stated that the argument regarding “honourably acquitted” stands ground if there was any internal inquiry to support the suspension. That being not done, the suspension was solely due to the detention of the petitioner.
It was further stated by the court that in the absence of any departmental proceeding being drawn, the only conclusion that can be drawn is that the petitioner was restrained from discharging duties on account of his detention in jail in connection with a criminal case a circumstance to be taken as beyond his control and his innocence ultimately being proved by way of acquittal in the said criminal case, he should not be penalized.
Further, it was stated that the principle of 'no work no pay' could have been attracted if the petitioner had enjoyed bail in a criminal case and had been merely kept under suspension but this is not the case either and the petitioner remained in detention until he was acquitted and further, there was no question of petitioner giving any certificate that he was not gainfully employed anywhere during the period he was under suspension.
Further, the court referred to the case of Raj Narain vs Union of India and Ors., wherein even though a departmental inquiry was set up but was later on dropped and upon acquittal the employee was reinstated revoking his suspension order. The Court held since the petitioner remained in detention and was not released on bail during the period of suspension, he was not required to produce a certificate to prove that he was not gainfully employed during such period and even though it was a simple acquittal, the circumstances for his detention were beyond his control.
The decision of the Court:
The court allowed the petition and quashed the impugned order, directing the respondents to make payment of arrears of salary to the petitioner for the period the petitioner has remained under suspension
Case Title: Anil Kumar Singh vs State of U.P. and Ors.
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajit Kumar
Case No.: WRIT - A No. - 11555 of 2021
Advocate for the Petitioner: Vimal Chandra Mishra
Advocate for the Respondent: C.S.C.
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
