Punjab-Haryana High Court
Rajinderpal Singh vs State Of Punjab And Another on 19 November, 2024
Author: Harsimran Singh Sethi
Bench: Harsimran Singh Sethi
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:154641
CWP-665-2017 (O&M) & -1-
CWP-3384-2019 (O&M)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
310+237 CWP-665-2017 (O&M)
Date of Decision :19.11.2024
Satpal Singh ...Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab and others ...Respondents
CWP-3384-2019 (O&M)
Rajinderpal Singh ...Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab and another ...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI
Present: Mr. Jatinderpal Singh, Advocate for the petitioner
in CWP-665-2017.
Mr. Tahaf Bains, Advocate for the petitioner
in CWP-3384-2019.
Ms. Shruti, AAG, Haryana
***
Harsimran Singh Sethi, J. (Oral)
In CWP-665-2017, the grievance being raised by the petitioner
is qua the order dated 15.10.2015 (Annexure P/7) by which, the suspension
period of the petitioner has been treated as non-duty period for all intent and
1 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:154641
CWP-665-2017 (O&M) & -2-
CWP-3384-2019 (O&M)
purposes including the payment of full salary.
At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner is not raising claim for the release of full salary for the suspension
period but once, an FIR on the basis of which the petitioner was suspended,
has already been quashed though, on compromise, the suspension period is
to be treated as duty period for all other intent and purposes
Learned counsel for the respondent-State submits that once the
petitioner was arrested and that too on the basis of an FIR registered by the
third party of which, the department has no role of play and the petitioner
remained in custody for more than 48 hours and the petitioner was
suspended therefore, merely that the FIR has been quashed on the basis of
the compromise, even in that case no benefit of the suspension period can be
given to the petitioner including the salary or can even be treated as a duty
period and hence, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone
through the record with their able assistance.
Keeping in view the rules governing the service, according to
which, an employee who remains under custody for more than 48 hours is
automatically suspended, thereby the suspension order passed by the
respondent-department against the petitioner as he remained behind the bars
for more than 48 hours with respect to No.170 dated 07.09.2013 registered
under Sections 498-A, 406 & 323 of the IPC at Police Station Kotkapura,
District Faridkot cannot be treated as unjustified or contrary to the rules
governing the service.
The question which arises now is whether after the FIR has
2 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:154641
CWP-665-2017 (O&M) & -3-
CWP-3384-2019 (O&M)
been quashed on the basis of a compromise, whether the petitioner is entitled
for the salary for the suspension period as well as the same is to be treated as
duty period or not.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has already given up the
claim qua the grant of full salary for the suspension period hence, the only
adjudication required to be undertaken is whether the said suspension period
is to be taken as duty period for all other intent and purposes or not.
The benefit of treating the suspension period as a duty period
can only be declined in case an employee is held guilty of the allegations
which are alleged against him/her.
In the present case, though an FIR was registered against the
petitioner but before even the charges could be framed, a compromise was
effected and the FIR was quashed hence, under these circumstances, no
adverse report has come against the petitioner so far so as to treat even the
suspension period as a non-duty period.
Keeping in view the said fact, the respondents are under an
obligation to treat the said period as a duty period for all other intent and
purposes including the grant of increment and to be treated as a qualifying
service except the payment of full salary for the period in question, which
claim has already been waived of by the petitioner.
Keeping in view the above, order dated 15.10.2015 (Annexure
P/7) is set aside with the above said directions.
Qua the CWP-3384-2019, the facts are also somewhat identical
as the petitioner therein was also facing criminal proceedings in respect of
FIR No.100 dated 14.10.1998 registered under Sections 304-B and 34 of the
3 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:154641
CWP-665-2017 (O&M) & -4-
CWP-3384-2019 (O&M)
IPC at Police Station Mehna, District Moga and was consequently
suspended vide order dated 24.12.1998 (Annexure P/1). Though, the
petitioner was convicted in the said proceeding vide order dated 22.08.2003
passed by the Court of learned Additional and Sessions Judge, Faridkot but
the respondents never took any action against the petitioner till order dated
12.09.2016 (Annexure P/3) was passed on the basis of the said conviction
wherein, the respondent-department dismissed the petitioner from service
from retrospective effect i.e. 22.08.2003 and the petitioner continued under
suspension from the date of suspension i.e. 24.12.1998 till the date of
dismissal from service i.e. 12.09.2016.
The petitioner-Rajinderpal Singh had filed an appeal against the
judgment of conviction and he was acquitted in appeal vide order dated
08.03.2017 (Annexure P/4) and consequently he was reinstated in service
vide order dated 20.09.2017 (Annexure P/5) and ultimately retired from
service on 30.09.2022.
The grievance of the petitioner is that though, he is not claiming
the salary for the period in question i.e. when he remained under suspension
or out of service but the total length of service from the date of appointment
till superannuation needs to be taken into account as a qualifying service for
computing his pensionary benefits.
No cogent reason has come forward to deny the said benefit.
Once, the petitioner was suspended due to registration of an FIR and was
dismissed from service on account of his conviction in the said criminal
proceedings vide order dated 22.08.2003 but the petitioner has been
acquitted in an appeal on 08.03.2017 (Annexure P/4) and he was also
4 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:154641
CWP-665-2017 (O&M) & -5-
CWP-3384-2019 (O&M)
reinstated in service, accordingly, the benefit of total length of service
starting from 26.04.1997 till the date of retirement from service cannot be
taken away on any account. Though, the actual financial benefits will not be
given to the petitioner for the period he remained under suspension or out of
service but the total length of service is to be taken into account by fixing
the salary of the petitioner notionally even for the period for which he
remained under suspension or he remained out of service.
Let the respondents calculate the total qualifying service for
computing the pensionary benefits on length of service of the petitioner
keeping in view the direction given by this Court in the present order, the
pensionary benefits be made admissible to him on the basis of the qualifying
service which will be computed keeping in view the direction given
hereinbefore and be paid to the petitioner.
Let the present order be complied with within a period of 08
weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
Present petitions are disposed of in above terms.
Civil miscellaneous application pending, if any, is also disposed
of.
A photocopy of this order be placed on the file of connected
case.
November 19, 2024 (HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI)
aarti JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
5 of 5
