Punjab-Haryana High Court
Rambir Singh vs State Of Haryana And Others on 14 August, 2024
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:105974
CWP-28709-2022 (O&M) -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
WP-28709-2022 (O&M)
C
Date of decision:14.08.2024
Rambir Singh, since deceased, represented through LR
...Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and others
...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMAN CHAUDHARY
*****
Present : Mr. P.K. Goklaney and
Mr. Ashish Goklaney, Advocates for the petitioner.
Mr. Dushyant Saharan, AAG, Haryana.
*****
AMAN CHAUDHARY, J.
1. Prayer madeisforpaymentoffullsalaryandallowancesforthe
period of dismissal, i.e. 16.04.2016 to 10.05.2022, when the petitioner was
reinstated.
2. As it emerges, the petitioner, while being appointed as Jail
Warder at District Jail, Rohtak, was involved in FIR No.130 registered by
SuperintendentofJail,RohtakunderNDPSActon17.04.2016andduringthe
pendency of the criminal case, he, pursuant to an ex-parte departmental
inquiry, was dismissed from service on 30.12.2016. Subsequently he was
acquittedbythetrialCourtvidejudgmentdated16.02.2018byobservingthat,
"Therefore, the prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case against
beyondeveryshadowofdoubt.Therefore,itisherebyorderedthataccusedis
acquitted of the charges framed against him..."
3. The appeal filed by the petitioner against the order of his
dismissal was initially rejected on03.04.2017,howeverwasremandedtothe
appellate authority by the order of this Court dated 07.04.2022 passed in
CWP-30442-2018. The matter having been reconsidered, he was reinstated
1 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:105974
CWP-28709-2022 (O&M) -2-
with immediate effect vide order dated 02.05.2022, however was held not
entitled toanyduesfortheperiodofdismissal,ontheprincipleof'NoWork
No Pay'.
4. Before proceeding in thematter,itwouldbeworthwhiletorefer
to Rules 7.3 and7.5PunjabCivilServicesRules,Vol.I,PartI,asapplicable
to the State of Haryana, which read thus:
" ALLOWANCES ON REINSTATEMENT
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 absencefrom
duty, occasioned by suspension and/or dismissal, removal
orcompulsoryretirementendingwithhisreinstatementon
orthedateofhisretirementonsuperannuationasthecase
may be, and
(b) whether or not the said period shall be treated as 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,hashenotbeendismissed,removed,compulsorily
retired or suspended, as the case may be.
(3) In other cases, the Government employee shall be
given such proportionofsuchpayandallowancesassuch
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
2 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:105974
CWP-28709-2022 (O&M) -3-
d uty 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
FOR DEBT, OR DURING DETENTION UNDER A
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."
5. Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam
Ltd.vs.NathuRam1,whiledeliberatingtherightsofanemployeewhobeen
acquitted on appeal for offenses under IPCandthePreventionofCorruption
Act,1947,heldthatwhenspecificprovisionsstipulatethatuponexoneration,
employee is entitled to the restoration of both pay and allowances for the
period extending from the date of dismissal, such benefits must be duly
granted,byobservingthat,"Itisnotindisputethattheappellant-Corporation
1
(2010) 1 SCC 428
3 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:105974
CWP-28709-2022 (O&M) -4-
havethemselvesgivenfullpaytotherespondentfromthedateofsuspension
i.e. 30th of November, 1979 to the date of dismissal i.e. 28th of December,
1982andfromthedateofacquittali.e.15thofDecember,1997tothedateof
reinstatement i.e. 3rd of June, 1998. Such being the state of affairs, it isnot
acceptable that there was any reason for the Corporation not to give the
suspension allowances for the period of termination i.e. 28th of December,
1982 to the date of acquittal i.e. 15th of December, 1997 in terms of the
circular dated 3rd of September, 1975.Thiscircularalsosaysthattheperiod
fromthedateofdismissaltothedateofacquittal,theemployeeshouldnotbe
allowed pay and allowances less than what would have been admissible to
him had he remained under suspension. Therefore, from a reading of the
Circular, it would be evident that the respondent may be paid the pay and
allowancesadmissibletohimhadheremainedundersuspension.Thiswasthe
view expressed by thelearnedSingleJudgeaswellastheDivisionBenchof
the High Court."
6. InthecaseofManjitKumar@Goldivs.StateofPunjab2, the
petitioner, a Constable, was dismissed due to pendency of criminal
proceedingsinitiatedagainsthim,whereinhestoodacquittedinappeal.While
discussing the aforementioned provision of Rule 7.3 ibid, the importance of
due process and the implications of wrongful dismissal were underscored,
particularlyincaseswhereanemployeeisexoneratedofcriminalcharges,this
Court thereby observed that, "A barereadingoftheprovisionwouldmakeit
clear that a Government employee who has been dismissed, removed,
compulsorily retired or suspended, is re-instated upon having been fully
exonerated,thenheshallbegivenfullpayandallowancestowhichhewould
have been entitled to had he not been dismissed, removed, compulsorily
2
2017 (4) PLR 11
4 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:105974
CWP-28709-2022 (O&M) -5-
retiredorsuspendedasthecasemaybe.Inthefactsofthepresentcase,once
theorderofconvictionofthepetitionerundertheprovisionsoftheNDPSAct
andPreventionofCorruptionActhasbeensetasideandthepetitionerstands
completely exonerated, he would be entitled to all benefits as provided for
underRule7.3ofthePunjabCivilServicesRules.Dismissalfromservicewas
only on account of the pendency of the criminal proceedings having been
initiated. The said proceeding had been initiated at the behest of the
Governmentitselfandwerenotonthebasisofaprivatecomplaint.ThisCourt
would havenohesitationinholdingthatintermsofRule7.3ofPunjabCivil
Services, the petitioner upon being acquitted wouldbeentitledtobenefitsas
provided under the Rules."
7. This Court inMahaSinghvs.StateofHaryanaandanother3,
while placing reliance on the judgment of Jagmohan Lal vs. State of
Punjab4, held the petitioner therein,dismissedfromserviceduetopendency
of criminal proceedings and later reinstated after being acquitted, entitled to
full pay and allowances for the period of suspension.
8. In a similar vein, this Court in a myriad of judgments such as
Krishan Kumar vs. Haryana State Federation of Consumer's
Cooperative Wholesale Stores Ltd. and Another5, Upkar Singh vs.
Municipal Committee, Sunam, District Sangrur6 and Shiv Kumar Goel
vs. State of Haryana and another7, has recurrently elucidated that after
acquittal, employees are entitled to full salary for the duration of their
suspension or wrongful dismissal.
3
1 994 (1) RSJ 251
4
1967 AIR (P&H) 422
5
1998 (1) AIJ 325
6
2005 (1) SLR 465
7
2007 (1) SCT 739
5 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:105974
CWP-28709-2022 (O&M) -6-
9. ThenetlegaleffectremainsthatSuperintendentofJail,beingthe
complainant in the FIR, the Department failedtobringhometheguiltofthe
petitioner, on account of which he was honourablyacquitted,thusisentitled
to restoration of his rightful position so as toreceivepayandallowances,as
withholding thereof would undermine the very essence of fairness.
10. In sum, on an overall circumspection,theimpugnedorderdated
02.05.2022,AnnexureP-15isherebysetasidetotheextentitdeniespayment
of dues for dismissal period. As a sequitur, the respondents are directed to
grant the petitioner the pay and allowances, from 16.04.2016 to 10.05.2022
at an interest of 6 % per annum, within a period of two months.
11. Disposed of accordingly.
(AMAN CHAUDHARY)
JUDGE
1 4.08.2024
Hemant
hether speaking/reasoned
W : es / No
Y
Whether reportable : Yes / No
6 of 6
