Punjab-Haryana High Court
Mehar Singh vs The State Of Haryana And Ors on 1 August, 2024
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:098427
CWP-14059-2022 (O&M) -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
WP-14059-2022 (O&M)
C
Date of decision:01.08.2024
Mehar Singh
...Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and others
...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMAN CHAUDHARY
*****
Present : Mr. Surinder Singh, Advocate for the petitioners.
Mr. Harish Rathee, Sr. DAG, Haryana.
*****
AMAN CHAUDHARY. J
1. As it emerges, the petitioner, who was working as Inspector,
Co-operativeSocieties,Bilaspur,wassuspendedonaccountofregistrationof
an FIR against him and other members of Co-operative Societies on a
complaint filed by Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Ambala,
followed by other FIRs lodged by private members of the Navyug
Co-operative Society, wherein he was acquitted.
2. Notably, the period of suspension w.e.f. 26.10.2008 till
29.06.2010 was accordingly, treated to be on duty, vide order dated
30.07.2019, albeit without any monetary benefits, except subsistence
allowance, which was later increased from 50% to 75%.
3. To proceed further in the matter,itwouldbeappositetomakea
reference to Rules 7.3 and 7.5 Punjab Civil Services Rules, Vol. I,PartI,as
applicabletotheStateofHaryana,inregardtotheawardoffullsalaryduring
the period of suspension, relevant portion whereof reads thus:
"ALLOWANCES ON REINSTATEMENT
1 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:098427
CWP-14059-2022 (O&M) -2-
7 .3 (1) When a Government employee, who has been
dismissed, removed, compulsory retired, or suspended, is
reinstated, or would have been reinstated but for his
retirement on superannuation the authority competent to
order the reinstatement shallconsiderandmakeaspecific
order:-
(a) regarding the pay and allowances to be paid to
the Government employee for the period of his
absencefromduty,occasionedbysuspensionand/or
dismissal,removalorcompulsoryretirementending
with his reinstatement on or the date of his
retirement on superannuation as the case may be,
and
(b)whetherornotthesaidperiodshallbetreatedas
a period spent on duty.
(2) Where the authority mentioned in sub-rule (1) is of
opinion that the Government employee has been fully
exoneratedor,inthecaseofsuspension,thatitwaswholly
unjustified, the Government employee shall be given the
full pay and allowances to which he would have been
entitled,hadhenotbeendismissed,removed,compulsorily
retired or suspended, as the case may be.
(3) In other cases, the Government employee shall be
given suchproportionofsuchpayandallowancesassuch
competent authority may prescribe:
Providedthatthepaymentofallowancesundersub-rule(2)
or sub- rule (3) shall be subject to all other conditions
under which such allowances are admissible. Provided
further that such proportion of such pay and allowances
shallnotbelessthanthesubsistenceandotherallowances
admissible under rule 7.2.
(4) In a case falling under sub-rule (2) the period of
absencefromdutyshallnotbetreatedasaperiodspenton
duty for all purposes.
(5) In a case falling under sub-rule (3) the period of
absencefromdutyshallnotbetreatedasaperiodspenton
duty unless such competent authority specifically directs
that it shall be so treated for any specified purpose:
ProvidedthatiftheGovernmentemployeesodesires,such
authority may direct that the period of absence fromduty
shall be converted into leave of any kind due and
admissible to the Government employee.
xxx xxx xxx
USPENSION DURING PENDENCY OF CRIMINAL
S
PROCEEDINGS, OR PROCEEDINGS FOR ARREST
2 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:098427
CWP-14059-2022 (O&M) -3-
OR DEBT, OR DURING DETENTION UNDER A
F
LAW PROVIDING FOR PREVENTIVE DETENTION
7 .5. An employee of Government against whom
proceedinghavebeentakeneitherforhisarrestfordebtor
on a criminal charge or who detained under any law
providingforpreventivedetentionshouldbeconsideredas
under suspension for any periods during which he is
detained in custody or is undergoing imprisonment, and
not allowed to draw any pay and allowances (other than
any subsistence allowance that may be granted in
accordance with the principles laid down in rule 7.2) for
such period until the final termination of the proceedings
takenagainsthimoruntilheisreleasedfromdetentionand
allowed to rejoin duty,asthecasemaybe.Anadjustment
of his allowances for such periods should thereafter be
made according to the circumstances of the case, the full
amount being given only in the event of theofficerbeing
acquittedofblameor(iftheproceedingstakenagainsthim
were for his arrest for debt), of its being proved that the
officer's liability arose from circumstances beyond his
control or the detention being held by the competent
authority to be unjustified."
4. The aforesaid Rules have been the subject matter in the caseof
Hukam Singh vs. State of Haryana1, wherein the Division Bench while
considering the scope of Rule 7.5 ibid,ultimatelyheldthepetitionertherein,
who was acquitted for offenses under Sections 302, 307, and 324,readwith
Section 34 of the IPC by Hon'ble the Supreme Court, entitled to full salary
and allowances for theperiodofhissuspensionanddismissal.Followingthe
foregoingdictum,thisCourtinRamAnjorevs.UttariHaryanaBijliVitran
Nigam Limited through its Managing Director2, observed that once an
employee is absolved of charges levied, he is entitled to complete salary in
light of the aforementioned Rules. The petitioner therein was suspended
pursuant to his involvement in an offence under Sections 7 and 13 of the
1
2 001(1) RSJ 201.
2
2016(2) S.C.T. 716.
3 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:098427
CWP-14059-2022 (O&M) -4-
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, though he stood acquitted by the
appellate Court, finding the charges against him unjustified.
5. Thefocalpointarticulatedhereinstandsreiteratedinamyriadof
judgments, suchasIshwarSinghvs.StateofHaryana3;JagmohanLalvs.
State of Punjab4; Surjit Singh vs. State of Haryana and another5 and
Baldev Singh vs. State of Haryana6,whereinwhiledecidingsimilarissues,
the Courts have recurrently ruled that employees acquitted of charges are
generally entitledtofullsalaryfortheperiodoftheirsuspensionorwrongful
dismissal, underscoring a commitment to socio-economic justice and fairness.
6. In BrahmaChandraGuptavs.UnionofIndia7, acasesimilar
totheoneathand,whereintheappellantwasacquittedofthecriminalcharges
under Sections 19(F) of the Indian Arms Act and5oftheIndianExplosives
Substances Act and also no disciplinary proceedings were ever initiated
against him, Hon'ble the Supreme Court observed and held that, "...The
appellant was a permanent UDC who has already retired on superannuation
and must receive a measure of socio-economic justice. Keeping in view the
facts of the case that the appellant was never hauled up for departmental
enquiry, that he was prosecuted and has been ultimately acquitted, and on
being acquitted he was reinstated and was paid full salary for the period
commencing from his acquittal, and further that even for the period in
questiontheconcernedauthorityhasnotheldthatthesuspensionwaswholly
justifiedbecausethree-fourthofthesalaryisorderedtobepaid,weareofthe
opinion that the approach ofthetrialcourtwascorrectandunassailable.The
learned TrialJudgeonappreciationoffactsfoundthatthisisacaseinwhich
3
2 012 (2) SCT 209.
4
1967 AIR (P&H) 422.
5
CWP-1326-2013, decided on 30.04.15.
6
2013(1) RSJ 43.
7
1984 (2) SCC 433.
4 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:098427
CWP-14059-2022 (O&M) -5-
full amount of salary should have been paid to the appellant on his
reinstatement for the entire period. We accept that as the correct approach..."
7. Significantly even in the case in hand, no departmental enquiry
wasconductedagainstthepetitioner,whowasacquittedofthechargesbythe
trial Court itself, observing prosecution evidence to be unreliableandinany
case inadequate to establish the charges levelled, against which the appeal
preferredbytheStatealsostooddismissedquahim,ashewasfoundtobenot
amemberofthesociety,whileotherswereletoffonprobation.Theprinciples
of judicial comity require that, for all intents and purposes once honourably
discharged of criminal liability, denial of service benefits for suspension
period would be a travesty of justice, particularly when it was treated to be
dutyperiod.Inessence,oncetheindividualisclearedofanywrongdoing,itis
imperative that they are made whole in terms of grant of benefits.
8. Onaholisticconsiderationofthefactsandcircumstancesandas
afalloutthereof,theorderdated30.07.2019,AnnexureP-8,isset-asidetothe
extent it denies him salary for the period he remained under suspensionand
consequently so are the orders dated 07.01.2021 and 25.02.2021,Annexures
P-12 and P-13, respectively, passed in appeal and revision. The petitioner is
heldentitledtosalaryfortheperiodheremainedundersuspension,alongwith
interest@6%perannum.Compliancebemadewithinaperiodoftwomonths
from when a certified copy of this judgment is received by the respondents.
(AMAN CHAUDHARY)
JUDGE
0 1.08.2024
Hemant
hether speaking/reasoned
W : es / No
Y
Whether reportable : Yes / No
5 of 5
