Punjab-Haryana High Court
Avtar Singh vs State Of Punjab And Anr on 23 April, 2024
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:055014
CWP-7324-2017 (O&M) 2024:PHHC:055014
- 1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
236
CWP-7324-2017 (O&M)
Date of decision: 23.04.2024
Avtar Singh
....Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab and Another
...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMAN CHAUDHARY
*****
Present : Mr. R.K. Arora, Advocate for the petitioner
Mr. Swapan Shorey, DAG Punjab
*****
AMAN CHAUDHARY. J. (ORAL)
1. The prayer in the present petition is for directing the respondents to
regularise the suspension period of the petitioner from 07.10.2005 to 21.07.2010
on account of his acquittal in criminal cases and to release all consequential
benefits.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that reliance in the present
case at the time of notice of motion was made on pendency of CWP-16484-2016,
as the same also involved the issue of regularisation of suspension period on
account of the petitioner having been acquitted in a criminal case and for treating
the same on duty, which stands allowed vide judgment dated 02.04.2024. Relevant
paras whereof read thus:
7. Rule 7.3 ibid was subject matter of consideration in
Uttri Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam and another vs. Shashi
Kumar, Civil Appeal No.4114 of 2006 decided on 26.09.2013,
heard by Hon'ble the Supreme Court along with three similar
appeals, for deciding the claims of appellants who had been
acquitted of charges under IPC and Prevention of Corruption
Act, as the case may be, wherein it was observed and held that,
"On a plain reading of the above-reproduced rule, it becomes
1 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:055014
CWP-7324-2017 (O&M) 2024:PHHC:055014
- 2-
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."
8. In Hukam Singh vs. State of Haryana, 2001(1) RSJ
201, services of the petitioner were terminated due to his
conviction under Sections 302, 307 and 324 read with Section
34 IPC. Upon his acquittal by Hon'ble the Supreme Court, a
claim was raised for full salary and allowance for the period of
suspension and dismissal, opposing which, the State had, as in
the case at hand, taken the plea of the petitioner cannot be
granted back wages, having not served during that time. The
Division Bench interpreted Rule 7.5 of Punjab Civil Services
Rules, as applicable to the State of Haryana, it being pari
materia to Rule 7.3 ibid and held the petitioner entitled to the
relief as prayed for.
9. Likewise, the petitioner in Sukhchain Singh vs. State of
Punjab, CWP-16192-2010, decided on 18.03.2013, who was
dismissed from service on the ground of conviction under
Sections 406 and 498-A IPC but acquitted in revision and no
departmental enquiry was initiated, was held entitled to grant
of pay and allowances by referring to Rule 7.3(2) ibid, for the
period he had remained out of service, relevant paras whereof
read thus,
"Claim of the petitioner is supported by this
Court in Shiv Kumar Goel vs State of
Haryan and others 2007 (1) S.C.T. 739
wherein it has been observed that if the
Criminal Court records a finding that there
is no evidence to prove the charge against
the employee, notwithstanding observations
2 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:055014
CWP-7324-2017 (O&M) 2024:PHHC:055014
- 3-
as to acquittal by the benefit of doubt, it
will be considered honourable acquittal and
the employee shall be entitled to pay and
allowances.
Perusal of the provisions and the judgment
referred to by the counsel for the petitioner,
it is clearly established that the petitioner on
his reinstatement is also entitled to the grant
of pay and allowances for the period he had
remained out of service especially when the
said period is treated as period spent on
duty for all purposes. The writ petition,
therefore, stands allowed. Impugned order
dated 16.10.2006 (Annexure P-3) which
restricts the grant of the benefit of the
service to be treated as leave of the kind due
shall stand set aside and it shall be treated
as a period spent on duty for all intents and
purposes. All the consequential benefits be
released to the petitioner within a period of
three months from the date of receipt of
certified copy of this order."
10. In Ex-Sub Inspector Ram Kishore vs. State of
Haryana and another, 2020 (1) SCT 828, the petitioner,
charged for offences under Sections
119/213/342/368/370/120B IPC and 7/8/49/88 of the PC Act,
had been dismissed from service on account thereof, was
acquitted by the trial Court and no departmental enquiry had
been conducted. He was held entitled to the salary for the
period he remained out of service, by relying on Sub Rule 2 of
Rule 7.3 ibid, while also pointing out that the decision of the
competent authority was contradictory, as on the one hand, he
was reinstated and on the other, he was deprived of his salary.
11. A further reference can be made to Ashok Kumar vs.
State of Haryana, CWP-1406-2019, decided on 01.02.2024,
wherein the petitioner, who was acquitted of charges under
sections 409/420/467/468/471 and 511 under IPC was ordered
to be be reinstated with all consequential benefits and granted
interest at the rate of 6% per annum on arrears for which he
was found entitled
12. This Court in Sh. Malkiat Singh (supra), after acquittal
of the petitioner in the criminal proceedings instituted against
him and the subsequent dropping of the charge sheet issued to
him, ordered the period of suspension to be treated as duty
period and not as leave of kind due.
13. The submission of learned State counsel with regard
benefit of doubt having been granted to the petitioner while
acquitting him, due to which his period of remaining out of
service cannot be treated on duty, cannot be countenanced,
3 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:055014
CWP-7324-2017 (O&M) 2024:PHHC:055014
- 4-
inasmuch as similar plea raised on behalf of the State had not
found favour in the case of Const. Sukhchain Singh vs. State
of Punjab and others, CWP-5228 of 2011, decided on
25.03.2013 and the said period was directed to be treated as on
duty for all intents and purposes.
14. Undeniably, Balraj Singh, who was involved in a
corruption, whilst charges against the petitioner were under
Section 302 IPC, was on acquittal also reinstated and the
period he stayed out of service was treated as duty period
whereas as leave of the kind due in case of the petitioner,
which besides being discriminatory, more so, is in teeth of the
provision of Rule 7.3 ibid as also the judgments afore referred.
15. As a sequel to the above, the present writ petition is
allowed and the petitioner is held entitled to salary and other
consequential benefits treating the period for which he
remained out of service as on duty. Needful be done within a
period of two months, from the date when a webprint of this
judgment is received."
3. Learned State counsel is unable to controvert the factual position and
draw out any distinctive aspects in the aforementioned judgment or cite any
contrary law.
4. In view of the aforesaid, the present petition is disposed of in terms of
the judgment passed in Dilbagh Singh (supra).
(AMAN CHAUDHARY)
JUDGE
23.04.2024
M.Kamra
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes / No
Whether reportable : Yes / No
4 of 4
