Punjab-Haryana High Court
Balbir Singh vs State Of Punjab And Ors on 22 January, 2025
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:009699
-1-
CWP-18010-2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
265 WP-18010-2022 (O & M)
C
Date of decision: 22.01.2025
Balbir Singh ....Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab and others ...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMAN CHAUDHARY Present : r. Atul Goyal, Advocate, M for the petitioner. Ms. Shruti, AAG, Punjab. ***** AMAN CHAUDHARY, J. (ORAL) 1. Thepetitionerassailstheordersdated06.06.2019(Annexure P-4),13.09.2021(AnnexureP-5)and10.11.2021andseeksadirectivefor the respondents to grant the petitioner full pay and allowances for the suspension period. 2. As itemergesfromthepetition,thepetitioner,whileserving asaClerk,wasimplicatedinFIRNo.6dated24.02.2009underSections 7 and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act,1988,atPoliceStation Vigilance Bureau, Ludhiana, leading to his suspension. Following his acquittal by the trial Court on 21.01.2014 (Annexure P-1) which was upheld upto Hon'ble the Supreme Court vide order dated 16.03.2018 (Annexure P-3), he was reinstated on 13.09.2021. However, he was denied financial benefits for the period of his absence from service between19.12.2012and05.06.2019,onthegroundsof'nowork,nopay.' and that he had been granted the benefit of doubt. 1 of 5 ::: Downloaded on - 29-01-2025 21:42:24 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:009699 -2- CWP-18010-2022 3. Ascribing to the view that when the charges remain unsubstantiated, the acquittal is deemed unequivocally honorable for all purposes, the Division BenchinShashiKumarvs.UttriHaryanaBijli Vitran Nigam and another1, SLP against which was dismissed on 26.09.2013 wherein, the petitioner who though was acquitted of the charges under Sections 7/13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, by givingbenefitofthedoubt,accordingfullbackwagesuponreinstatement, relevant paras whereof read thus: " 7. In any event, the terms "honourable acquittal" or "fully exonerated" are unknown in the Code of Criminal Procedure or in Criminal Jurisprudence. These terms came up for consideration before a Division Bench of the Madras High Courtinthecase of Union of India v. Jayaram, AIR 1960 Madras325. Rajammannar, C.J. delivering the judgment of the Division Bench observed as under :- "There is no conceptionlike"honourableacquittal"in CriminalProcedureCodeTheonusofestablishingthe guiltofaccusedisontheprosecution,andifitfailsto establish the guilt beyond reasonable doubt, the accused is entitled to be acquitted. Clause (b) of Article 193 of the Civil Service Regulations which says that when a Government servant who was under suspension is honourably acquitted, he may begiventhefullsalarytowhichhe wouldhavebeenentitledifhehadnotbeensuspended applies only to the case of departmental inquiry. Wheretheservantwassuspendedbecausetherewasa criminalprosecutionagainsthim,andhewasacquitted therein, and reinstated he is entitledunderthegeneral law,tothefullpayduringtheperiodofhissuspension. To such a case Article 193(b) does not apply." xxx xxx xxx 10. Furthermore a Division Bench of thisCourt,after examining the relevant rules in the case of Hukam Singh (supra) has held as under :- "ItisabundantlyclearthatRule7.3oftheRulesisthe general rule, while in case a person is acquitted, it is specific Rule 7.5 oftheRulesthatwouldbeattracted. 1 2005(1) Law Herald 156 2 of 5 ::: Downloaded on - 29-01-2025 21:42:25 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:009699 -3- CWP-18010-2022 he law is well settled that special Rule will always T take precedence over the general rule and consequently,itmustfollowthatunderRule7.5ofthe Rules, referred to above,thepetitionerwasentitledto the full back wages because, as mentionedabove,the earlier decisions referred to above have little application in the present case. In our this view,wearesupportedbythejudgmentof this Court in the case of Maha Singh v. State of Haryana and another, 1994(1) SCT 154 (P&H) : 1993(8) Services Law Reporter 188. Same view was expressed by this Court in the caseofLehnaSinghv. The State of Haryana and others, 1994(1) SCT 173 (P&H) : 1993(3) Recent Services Judgments 119. Keeping in view the aforesaid, we have no hesitation in holding that the impugned order cannot be sustained. In terms of Rule 7.5 of the Rules, on petitioner'sbeingacquitted,hewouldbeentitledtofull salaryandallowancesfortheperiodofsuspensionand dismissal....." 11. We are of the considered opinion that in view of the settled law the petitioner is clearly entitled to be reinstated in service with all consequential benefits. We quash the impugned order dated 27.8.2003 (AnnexureP-4).Wedirecttherespondentstoreinstate the petitioner into service with full back-wages. Mr. Agnihotri has argued that the respondents be given opportunity to now conduct a departmental enquiry. We are of the considered opinion that in view of the categoric findings recorded by the High Court, there would be hardlyanyjustificationinpermittingfurther departmentalaction.We,therefore,declinetherequest made by the counsel for the respondents. Petition allowed as indicated above. No costs." 4. In Shiv Kumar Goel vs. State of Haryana2, wherein no challenge has been made, the Division Bench noted thatifthechargeof corruption under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, was not supportedbyevidence,theacquittalhingedonthebenefitofdoubt,would be considered honorable. Additionally,thesuspensionperiodwastreated as time on duty, entitling the employee to full salary and all associated 2 2007 (1) SCT 739. 3 of 5 ::: Downloaded on - 29-01-2025 21:42:25 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:009699 -4- CWP-18010-2022 benefits.FurtherinSubashChandvsPunjabStatePowerCorporation Ltd. and others3 where the petitioner charged under the same Act was heldentitledtosalaryfortheperiodheremainedoutofservicebytreating it as duty for all intents and purposes. 5. Within the contours of a factually congruent scenario, the rationalefordenyingfullsalaryandtreatingthesuspensionperiodasnon dutybasedonthepremisethatacquittalwasbasedonthebenefitofdoubt, was deemed flawed in Jagmohan Lal vs. State ofPunjab4 whereinthe petitioner,exoneratedinacriminalcaseoftakingillegalgratification,was granted full pay and allowances, as the Court underscored that acquittal absolves an officer of blame and any contrary interpretation of Rule 7.5 Punjab Civil Service Rules, Vol I, Part I would undermine its very purpose. In Anil Kumar Tyagi vs. Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. and another5 which has attained finality upto Hon'ble the Supreme Court, the petitioner was initially terminated following a conviction under Sections 7 and 13 ofthePreventionofCorruptionAct, 1988, but was later acquitted This Court while relying on Rules 7.3and 7.5 ibid, held him entitled to monetary benefits for the period of suspension once exonerated and acquitted. 6. Invocation of the principle of "No Work, No Pay" is untenable in wake of the decision of the Division Bench in General Manager Operation Circle, D.H.B.V.N.L, Narnaul vs. Mathura Dass Gupta6 asbankedoninCWPNo.4465of2015titledasRanbirSinghvs. 3 2021(1) S.C.T 521 4 1 967 AIR (P&H) 422. 5 CWP-13988-2015, decided on 24.01.2017 . 6 2012(4) S.C.T 7 4 of 5 ::: Downloaded on - 29-01-2025 21:42:25 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:009699 -5- CWP-18010-2022 D.H.B.V.N.LandOthersdecidedon02.03.2016,LPAagainstwhichwas dismissedholdinginharmoniousaccordtherewith,thatdenialofpayand allowancesforthesuspensionanddismissalperiodisimproperpredicated on a conviction under Section 13C of Prevention of Corruption Act followed by acquittal by the appellate court. 7. Uponaconspectusevaluationofthepeculiarfactsofthecase viewed holistically in the backdrop of the legal position as enunciated above,thispetitiondeservestobeandisherebyallowed.Needfulbedone within a period of 2 months. 22.01.2025 (AMAN CHAUDHARY) parveen kumar JUDGE hether speaking/reasoned : Yes / No W Whether reportable : Yes / No 5 of 5 ::: Downloaded on - 29-01-2025 21:42:25 :::