Punjab-Haryana High Court
Jamal Masih vs State Of Punjab And Ors on 29 January, 2024
Author: Sanjeev Prakash Sharma
Bench: Sanjeev Prakash Sharma
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:011821
{2024:PHHC:011821}
213
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CWP-7482-2015 (O&M)
Date of Decision:29.01.2024.
JAMAL MASIH ........Petitioner
V/s.
STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS ........Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA
Present: Mr. Raj Kaushik, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Charanpreet Singh, AAG, Punjab.
***
SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA, J. (Oral)
1. The petitioner by way of this Writ Petition has assailed the order
dated 11.07.2014 (Annexure P-11) whereby the suspension period spent by
him has been treated as a leave of kind due although he was acquitted in
the criminal case registered against him for the alleged embezzlement of
`90/-.
2. It is submitted that against the order dated 07.02.2006 passed by
the Director, State Transport, Punjab, vide which the benefit of suspension
period has not been granted to the petitioner, he had preferred an Appeal
before the Secretary, who had refused to grant suspension allowance for the
period. While deciding the Appeal, the Secretary has although observed that
the petitioner has been acquitted, however, the said acquittal was by giving
him benefit of doubt and therefore, it is directed to count the period of
suspension as leave of any kind due.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the action of the
respondents is unjustified. Once the petitioner has been acquitted in terms of
1 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:011821
{2024:PHHC:011821}
CWP-7482-2015 (O&M)
Rule 7.3 (B) (3) of the Punjab Civil Services Rules, (Vol.1 Part 1), the
petitioner was entitled to the full allowances during the suspension period.
"Rule 7.3 (B) (3)
Where the authority competent to order re-instatement is of
opinion that the suspension was wholly unjustified, the Government
employee shall, subject to the provisions of sub-rule (8), be paid
the full pay and allowances to which he would have been entitled,
had he not been suspended:
Provided that where such authority is of opinion that the
termination of the proceedings instituted against the Government
employee, had been delayed due to reasons directly attributable to
the Government employee, it may, after giving him an opportunity
to make his representation and after considering the
representation, if any, submitted by him, direct, for reasons to be
recorded in writing, that the Government employee shall be paid
for the period of such delay only such amount (not being the whole)
of such pay and allowances as it may determine."
4. In Union of India and Others Vs. Jaipal Singh; (2004) 1
Supreme Court Cases 121, the Supreme Court also considered the earlier
judgment passed in Ranchhodji Chaturji Thakore Vs. Supdt. Engineer,
Gujarat Electricity Board; (1996) 11 SCC 603, and held that if prosecution,
which ultimately resulted in a person concerned, was at the behest or by the
Department itself, the consideration for back wages would arise. Thus,
examining the matter from all the angles, since it was the Department who
had initiated the case for embezzlement against the petitioner and the
petitioner was acquitted, he would be entitled to complete benefits.
5. In view of the above, the Writ Petition is allowed. The amount
with regard to the benefits shall be calculated and released to the wife of the
petitioner as it was informed that the petitioner has expired.
2 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:011821
{2024:PHHC:011821}
CWP-7482-2015 (O&M)
6. All pending applications in this Writ Petition stand disposed of
accordingly.
January 29, 2024 [SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA]
Ess Kay JUDGE
Whether speaking / reasoned : Yes / No
Whether Reportable : Yes / No
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:011821
3 of 3
