(O&M) Pseb And Ors vs Salinder Singh
2024 Latest Caselaw 19444 P&H

Punjab-Haryana High Court

(O&M) Pseb And Ors vs Salinder Singh on 5 November, 2024

                                  Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:145796




      IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
                     CHANDIGARH
999
                                                RSA-1033-2006
                                                Decided on : 05.11.2024

PSEB AND OTHERS
                                                                 ... Appellants
                                                                     Appellant
                                          Vs.

SALINDER SINGH
                                                                ... Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR
Present:    Mr. Parminder Singh,, Advocate
            for the appellants.

            Mr. Satish Sharma, Advocate for
            Mr. Arun Takhi, Advocate
            for the respondent.
                                          ***
HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J.

1. The appellants through instant second appeal are seeking setting

aside of judgement and decree dated 28.04.2005 passed by learned

Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Div.), Phagwara Phagwarain allowing Civil Suit No. 326 of

26.10.2002 26.10.2002filed by the respondent for mandatory injunction to the he effect that

appellants-defendants defendants be directed to treat his suspension period from

07.10.1996 to 30.08.1999 as On Duty period and subsequently make the full

payment of his salary for the aforesaid period period.. At the same time, prayer is

also made in the instant second appeal for setting aside the judgement and

decree dated 12.09.2005passed passed by learned District Judge, Kapurthala vide

which the first appeal filed by the appellant appellants was dismissed.

2. Tersely put, the facts of the case are that the respondent-plaintiff plaintiff

was working as Assistant Lineman in Punjab State Electricity Board (PSEB),

1 of 6

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:145796

i.e., appellant no.1 and was posted as such at Sub Sub-Division, Division, Chaheru in the

year 1996. During that time, the respondent was iimplicated mplicated in FIR No.69

dated 01.07.1996 registered under Section 306 of IPC at Police Station-

Station

Mahilpur, Hoshiarpur. Consequently, he was arrested by the jurisdictional

police on 07.10.1996 but the trial culminated in his acquittal on 22.05.1999.

When the appellants-defendants defendants came to know about the arrest of the

respondent, they placed him under suspension on 22.11.1996 w.e.f.

07.10.1996 under Regulation 4(1)(b) of Punishment & Appeal Rules, 1971

of the PSEB.After PSEB.After his acquittal, the respondent respondent-plaintiff made de a

representation to the appellants on 01.06.1999 for his reinstatement to the

service as well as regular allowances for the suspension period. Resultantly,

he was reinstated on 01.09.1999 but his allowances were withheld for the

period from 07.10.1996 to to 30.08.1999. However, the respondent respondent-plaintiff plaintiff

was given suspension allowance during the aforesaid period. Upon refusal of

the appellants-defendants appellants defendants to impart full pay and allowances for the

suspension period even after his reinstatement reinstatement, the respondent-plaintiff plaintiff

proceeded to file the present suit seeking seeking mandatory injunction.

3. Upon notice, the he respondents appeared before the learned trial

Court and contested the suit.. In their written statement statement, the appellants-

appellants

defendants pleaded that the suit suit was not maintainable. It was also pleaded that

the respondent-plaintiff respondent plaintiff had no locus standi to file the suit and that he failed to

serve notice under Section 80 of the Civil Procedure Code upon them before

filing the suit. It was further pleaded that since the respondent-plaintiff did

2 of 6

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:145796

not perform his duties for the period from 07.10.1996 to 30.08.1999 on

account of his suspension due to his arrest in a criminal case, he was not

entitled to full pay and allowances for this period. In the replication filed by

the respondent-plaintiff, respondent plaintiff, he reiterated all the averments made in his plaint

and refuted the ones made in the written statement of the appellants-

appellants

defendants. On the basis of their pleadings, aas many as 6 issues were

framedincluding the issue of relief. Thereaf Thereafter, the respondent-plaintiff plaintiff

himself stepped into the witness box as PW PW-1 1 whereas the appellants-

appellants

defendants did not lead any evidence to support their claim and their the

evidence was closed on 25.04.2005. Ultimately, Ultimately, the suit of the respondent-

respondent

plaintiff was allowed and the appellants-defendants defendants were directed to treat the

suspension period of respondent-plaintiff respondent plaintiff from 07.10.1996 to 30.08.1999 as

period spent on duty and they were further directed to make full payment of

remaining salary to him after excluding the suspension allowance allowance.. Affronted,

the appellants-defendants appellant preferred an appeal before the learned lower

Appellate Court which was dismissed being bereft of any merit merit. However, it

was recorded by the learned District Judge, Kapurthala that neither the

learned earned trial Court has granted any interest to the respondent respondent-plaintiff plaintiff nor

was he entitled to any interest claimed by him. Now, the appellants have ve

approached this Court for a second bout.

4. In view of the judgments passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court

in Pankajakshi (Dead) through Legal Representatives and others Vs.

Chandrika and others (2016) 6 SCC 157, Randhir Kaur Vs. Prithvi Pal

3 of 6

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:145796

Singh and others (2019) 17 SCC 71 and Gurbachan Singh (dead) through

LRs Vs. Gurcharan Singh (dead) through LRs and others, questions of law

are not required to be framed in second appeal before the Punjab and

Haryana High Court whose jurisdiction is circumscribed by provisions of

Section 41 of the Punjab Courts Act, however, since this Court vide order

dated 30.04.2018 has already already framed the substantial questions of law as

mentioned below, the same is being taken up for consideration herein: -

I. Whether the respondent is entitled to subsistence allowance, regulation of suspension period or not?

5. Learned counsel for the appell appellants inter alia contends that

perusal of para 10 of the judgement of the learned trial Court clearly shows

that the respondent-plaintiff respondent plaintiff was arrested on 07.10.1996 in a criminal case

initiated against him and he remained in judicial lock up. Due to his legal

confinement, the respondent-plaintiff plaintiff could not have discharged his duties

and therefore, he is not entitled to full salary for that period. It is also argued

that the impugned judgments passed by the learned Courts below are not

based on correct appreciation of law and and are thus liable to be set aside.

6. Learned counsel for the respondent argues that the learned

Courts have rightly based their decision on proper appreciation of the rules

governing the service of the respondent-plaintiff.

respondent plaintiff. He further submits that

once the respondent-plaintiff respondent plaintiff was reinstated to his post by the appellants on

account of his acquittal in the criminal case, he became entitled to full pay

and allowances for the suspension period since he could not perform his

4 of 6

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:145796

duties due to his his detention in a judicial lock up.

7. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the

paper-book book with their able assistance. As per the circular/memo No.

128932/129557/I.R. 331 dated 11.10.2000 issued by the Punjab State

Electricity Board which was addressed to all the Executive Engineers and

Superintending Engineers regarding regularization of suspension period, it

was directed that as per Rule 7-3(2) 7 3(2) of M.S.R. Part No.1 Volume Volume-1, 1, in case

an official is acquitted in a case, the period period of suspension is to be treated as

duty period and the official is entitled to full pay. Furthermore, nowhere it

has been differentiated in the circular between the criminal cases instituted

by the concerned department with regard to discharge of official duties and

the criminal cases instituted against an employee in private capacity. In the

case at hand, it has remained beyond dispute that the respondent respondent-plaintiff plaintiff

was reinstated to his post on 01.09.1999 by appellant no.1 no.1-Punjab Punjab State

Electricity Board soon soon after his acquittal in the criminal case instituted

against him under Section 306 of IPC. Considering the fact that case of the

respondent--plaintiff plaintiff was squarely covered by the directions given in the

aforementioned memo dated 11.10.2000, his period of suspension was

required to be regularized. In the light of the aforementioned facts, this Court

is inclined to opine that the learned Courts below have passed the respective

judgments under challenge herein, after proper appreciation of evidence and

law and nd have correctly held that respondent respondent-plaintiff plaintiff was entitled to full pay

and allowances for the period from 07.10.1996 to 30.08.1999.

5 of 6

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:145796

8. As an upshot of the above, no reason exists for this Court to

interfere in the judgment and decree dated 28.04.2005 passed assed by learned

Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Div.), Phagwara as well as the judgment and

decree dated 12.09.2005 passed by learned District Judge, Kapurthala.

9. Resultantly, the he instant second appeal is hereby dismissed.

10. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand

disposed of accordingly.

(HARPREET SINGH BRAR) 05.11.2024 24 JUDGE manisha

Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No

6 of 6