Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sandeep Sandhi vs State Of Punjab And Others on 8 April, 2024
Author: G.S. Sandhawalia
Bench: G.S. Sandhawalia
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:046957-DB
Neutral Citation No. 2024:PHHC:046957-DB
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
(114) LPA-1144-2023 (O&M)
Decided on : 08.04.2024
Sandeep Sandhi ......Appellant(s)
Versus
State of Punjab & others ......Respondent(s)
CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE G.S. SANDHAWALIA,
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE LAPITA BANERJI
Present: Mr.Deepanshu Mehta, Advocate for the appellant (s).
G.S. Sandhawalia, Acting Chief Justice (Oral)
1. Consideration in the present appeal is to the judgment dated
03.07.2023 passed by the Learned Single Judge in CWP-8638-2023 whereby
the writ petition had been dismissed while upholding the order dated
27.03.2023 (Annexure P-12) whereby the claim of the writ petitioner to
consider his suspension period from 02.02.2021 to 27.07.2022 as spent on
duty, was rejected by the Chief Engineer.
2. Counsel has vehemently argued that after the appellant had been
released on bail on 01.03.2021, he had reported for duty on 05.03.2021 and
thereafter made a request for reinstatement on 30.07.2021 (Annexure P-5) and
therefore, the reinstatement at a belated stage on 27.07.2022 would entitle him
for financial benefits from the State.
3. To appreciate the issue raised, it is necessary to notice that it is
not the case of suspension during the period of trial but the fact that the
appellant's conviction had been upheld in appeal on 01.02.2021 in a
matrimonial dispute by the Sessions Judge, Hoshiarpur. Resultantly, he had
been taken into custody and was suspended on the very next day on
02.02.2021. His sentence was suspended in CRR-213-2021 by this Court on
01.03.2021. It is thus apparent that he was a convict for all purposes till the
same was set aside.
1 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:046957-DB
(114) LPA-1144-2023 (O&M) -2-
4. The appellant then filed CRM-M-6854-2022 whereby he sought
to compromise in the matrimonial dispute and the Learned Single Judge of this
Court passed an order dated 18.02.2022 directing the parties to appear before
the Illaqa Matistrate/Trial Court for recording the statements. Resultantly,
report dated 30.03.2022 was submitted to this Court whereby the compromise
was held to be genuine and voluntary. It was in such circumstances, CRM-M-
6854-2022 which was filed for quashing on the basis of the compromise was
accepted only on 24.05.2022 (Annexure P-7). It was only after the said
affirmative action that the criminal proceedings were rendered void as the
appellant was reinstated immediately after a period of 2 months on
27.07.2022.
5. It is in such circumstances, the Learned Single Judge came to the
conclusion that there was no unreasonable delay on the basis of which he
could seek financial benefits for the delay. The authorities have examined his
case diligently in as much as while passing the order dated 25.07.2022, it was
held that keeping in view the principle of 'No Work, No Pay', he would not be
entitled for any financial benefits and it was at that time he was reinstated.
6. The appellant had approached this Court seeking financial
benefits in CWP-28989-2022 whereby directions were issued to decide his
representation dated 26.08.2022 (Annexure P-9). Resultantly, the impugned
order was passed by the authorities taking into consideration Rule 7.3(b)(1) of
the Punjab Civil Services Rules, Vol-1 Part-1 and the claim was rejected. The
law on this issue stands settled by the judgment of the three-Judge Bench of
the Apex Court in Civil Appeal No. 4114 of 2006, Uttri Haryana Bijli Vitran
Nigam and another vs. Shashi Kumar, that the said exercise is to be done by
2 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:046957-DB
(114) LPA-1144-2023 (O&M) -3-
the authorities and the applicability of the said Rules and the amount payable
is to be seen by them in the manner in which payment is to be made for the
said period. The relevant portion reads thus:-
"On a plain reading of the above-reproduced rule, it becomes
clear that when a Government employee who has been dismissed,
removed, compulsorily retired or suspended is reinstated or would
have been reinstated but for his retirement on superannuation, the
authority competent to order reinstatement has to consider and make a
specific order regarding pay and allowances to be paid to the
Government employee for the period of his absence from duty
occasioned by suspension and / or dismissal, removal or compulsory
retirement and also whether or not the said period shall be treated as
spent on duty. If the authority comes to the conclusion that the
employee has been fully exonerated or his suspension was wholly
unjustified, then it has to pass an order for payment of full pay and
allowances. In other case, an order for payment of proportionate pay
and allowances has to be passed. In the first case, the period of absence
has to be treated as a period spent on duty. In the second case, the
competent authority has to pass appropriate order whether the
intervening period should be treated as a period spent on duty for any
specified purpose. To put it differently, except in the cases of complete
exoneration the competent authority has the discretion to pass
appropriate order for payment of pay and allowances to the employee
during the period of his absence and also the treatment to be meted out
to that period.
Unfortunately, in these cases the competent authority did not
pass the required order in terms of Rule 7.3 of the Rules and when
Shashi Kumar made representation for his reinstatement, the Chief
Engineer arbitrarily rejected the same by assuming that even though he
had been acquitted, the charge of illegal gratification could be treated
as proved. In other cases, no order was passed by the concerned
authority. Therefore, in the peculiar facts of these cases, the High
Court was justified in ordering reinstatement of the respondents.
Insofar back wages are concerned, we are prima facie satisfied
that the High Court was not justified in directing payment of full salary
and allowances because the respondents had not been fully exonerated.
3 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:046957-DB
(114) LPA-1144-2023 (O&M) -4-
Each one of them was given benefit of doubt by the High Court or the
trial Court. Therefore, the High Court should have directed the
competent authority to pass appropriate order in terms of the rules
reproduced above. We may have adopted that course and directed the
concerned authority to pass necessary order within a specified time
frame, but, keeping in view the long lapse of time, we do not consider
it proper to exercise the power of this Court under Article 136 of the
Constitution and interfere with the order for payment of full back
wages.
With the above observations the appeals are dismissed.
However, the question of law is left open to be decided in
appropriate case. We also make it clear that the impugned orders shall
not be treated as precedent for other cases and the High Court shall
decide the pending matters or which may be filed hereinafter without
being influenced by the order passed in Shashi Kumar's case."
7. In such circumstances, having not worked for that period and on
account of being a convict, the appellant could not have been reinstated at an
earlier point of time. Resultantly, finding no fault in the procedure which had
been followed by the authorities and since the judgment passed by the Learned
Single Judge does not suffer from any infirmity which would warrant
interference by this Court, we are not inclined to entertain the present appeal.
The same is hereby dismissed in limine. All pending application(s) also stand
disposed of.
(G.S. SANDHAWALIA)
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
(LAPITA BANERJI)
08.04.2024 JUDGE
Sailesh
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes
Whether Reportable : No
4 of 4
