The single judge bench of Justice Jaishree Thakur of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Jagmail Singh Vs State of Punjab & Ors held that the employee, who stands compulsorily retired/dismissed from service on account of criminal proceedings initiated against him would be entitled to reinstatement if he stands acquitted, and would be entitled to all benefits for the period he was out of service.
BRIEF FACTS
The factual matrix of the case is that the petitioner was appointed as the constable and thereafter promoted as head constable. However, an FIR was registered against him along with 8 other persons under Sections 420, 384, 489A, 489B, 489D, 489E, 120-B IPC and Sections 7/13(1)(D) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Later on, he was arrested and dismissed from the service. Thereafter, the petitioner was proved innocent and the field an appeal before the Inspector General of Police for his reinstatement in service as the very FIR on the basis of which he was dismissed from service, stood cancelled and a cancellation report has been accepted by the competent court. The appeal was arrested, however, the period from dismissal till reinstatement was treated as “no work, no pay”.
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has contended that the there was no need for a further response or supporting documentation because the petitioner was cleared in the FIR and the cancellation report was accepted by the relevant court. According to Rule 7.3 of the Punjab Civil Services Rules, Vol. Part 1, the time in question must be regarded as having been spent on duty.
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the state has contended that though the petitioner has been reinstated in service, but since he remained out of service and remained in custody as well, he is not entitled to any pay and allowances.
COURT’S OBSERVATION
The hon’ble court held that the employee, who stands compulsorily retired/dismissed from service on account of criminal proceedings initiated against him would be entitled to reinstatement if he stands acquitted, and would be entitled to all benefits for the period he was out of service. Further the reliance was made on the judgement titled Hukam Singh V. The State of Haryana and another 2001 (1) RSJ 201, and Narinder Kumar Versus Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. and others, 2016 (3) SCT 738 (P& H). The instant writ petition is allowed and the impugned orders are set aside holding that the petitioner would be entitled to all the benefits as mentioned in Rule 7.3(3) of the Punjab Civil Services Rules, 1994 for the period he remained out of service.
CASE NAME- Jagmail Singh Vs State of Punjab & Ors
CITATION- CWP-646-2020
CORUM- Justice Jaishree Thakur
DATE- 04.11.22
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com:
Picture Source :
