Punjab-Haryana High Court
State Of Punjab And Others vs Constable Harinderpal Singh on 7 September, 2009
Author: Hemant Gupta
Bench: Hemant Gupta
R.S.A.No.2054 of 2008 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
R.S.A.No.2054 of 2008
Date of Decision : 07.09.2009
State of Punjab and others ...Appellants
Versus
Constable Harinderpal Singh ...Respondent
CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the
judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
Present: Ms. Ambika Luthra, AAG, Punjab,
for the appellants.
Mr. Babbar Bhan, Advocate,
for the respondent.
HEMANT GUPTA, J. (ORAL)
The defendants are in second appeal aggrieved against the judgment and decree passed by the learned first Appellate Court, whereby the plaintiff was ordered to be paid arrears of pay and other allowances during his suspension period.
The plaintiff joined as Constable in Punjab Police on 21.8.1992. An FIR for an offence under Sections 307/323/324/506/34 IPC was registered against the plaintiff, his brother Amandeep Singh and his mother Balbir Kaur. The plaintiff was placed under suspension vide order dated 1.9.2001 w.e.f. 27.6.2001. However, the criminal trial resulted into his acquittal vide order dated 20.2.2002. The plaintiff was reinstated vide order dated 27.3.2002 and a show cause notice was issued to the plaintiff as to why he should not be paid anything beyond the R.S.A.No.2054 of 2008 2 subsistence allowance. After considering the reply, an order was passed by the Superintendent of Police, Jalandhar Cantt, on 26.4.2002 that he shall not be paid anything more than the subsistence allowance. An appeal filed by the plaintiff was dismissed by the Inspector General of Police on 24.10.2002. Aggrieved against the said orders, the plaintiff has filed the present suit. The same was dismissed by the leaned trial Court, but the learned first Appellate Court has held that after acquittal in a criminal case and his reinstatement, the plaintiff has to be treated in service and is entitled to the pay and allowances for the alive period.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties on the following substantial question of law :
"Whether the plaintiff is entitled to full pay and allowances for the period, he remained under suspension on account of a criminal trial of an offence, not initiated by the employer?"
Learned counsel for the appellants has relied upon a judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Jagir Singh Bhullar Vs. Union of India 2008(2) PLR 446, wherein relying upon the Hon'ble Supreme Court's judgment in The Management of Reserve Bank of India, New Delhi Vs. Bhopal Singh Panchal, AIR 1994 S.C. 552, it was held that the arrest and trial faced by an employee are the circumstances, for which the Department has no role to play. Therefore, an employee is not entitled to pay and allowances for the period, he remained under suspension. It was held to the following effect :
"8. A perusal of the above rule would show that the petitioner shall be entitled to full pay and allowances only if the competent authority to order reinstatement is of the opinion that R.S.A.No.2054 of 2008 3 the suspension was wholly unjustified. The issue which is required to be examined is whether suspension of the petitioner consequent to his arrest in the aforesaid FIR can be said to be wholly unjustified. The petitioner was arrested on the basis of a complainant which led to the lodging of the FIR. The petitioner remained in jail for a period of more than three months. The criminal trial against him remained pending for more than eleven years when the same was withdrawn with the permission of the Court having compromised the matter. The arrest of the petitioner and the trial faced by the petitioner are the circumstances for which the department has no role to play. With this background, can it be said that the petitioner is entitled to full pay and allowances for the period when he did not work for the department and, in fact, was facing trial
10. In view of the aforesaid judgment, the petitioner did not discharge his duties on account of his involvement in a criminal case. The respondents are in no way responsible for keeping him away from the duties......."
The order denying the full pay and allowances for the suspension period has been passed keeping in view Rule 7.3-B (1) of the Punjab Civil Services Rules, which reads as under :
"7.3-B (1) When a Government employee who has been suspended is reinstated or would have been so re-instated but for his retirement on superannuation while under suspension the authority competent to order re-instatement shall consider and make a specific order :-R.S.A.No.2054 of 2008 4
(a) regarding the pay and allowances to be paid to the Government employee for the period of suepension ending with re-instatement or the date of his retirement on superannuation, as the case may be; and
(b) whether or not the said period shall be treated as a period spent on duty."
The said Rule is para materia with Fundamental Rule 54, considered in the judgment referred to above. Therefore, the principles laid down in the said judgment are applicable to the facts of the present case as well.
In view of the above, the judgment and decree passed by the learned first Appellate Court is not sustainable. Consequently, the same is set aside while allowing the present appeal. The suit is dismissed with no order as to costs.
07.09.2009 (HEMANT GUPTA) Vimal JUDGE