IMPORTANT POINT
Salary – Upon an order being passed by appellate authority finding termination of employee to be illegal and leaves it there, it would not ipso facto inevitably follow that employee will become entitled to claim salary for entire period consequent upon his being found to be entitled to reinstatement – This is a matter for authority to decide.

JUDGMENT :

K.M. JOSEPH, J.

1. The appellant was appointed as a Clerk on 27.12.1979 by the State Transport Department. A criminal case (FIR) came to be registered on 02.09.1986. The allegations against him apparently pertained to alleged acts of embezzlement. It was followed by a charge-sheet on 06.10.1988. In connection with the said case, the appellant came to be suspended w.e.f. 02.09.1986. While he was undergoing suspension, yet another occurrence took place which led to FIR No. 51/1995 being registered under Sections 307 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as ‘IPC’). The appellant came to be convicted by the trial court with regard to FIR No. 51/1995 by judgment dated 17.09.1996. The appellant filed Criminal Appeal No. 703-SB/1996 against the conviction. The appellant was convicted under Section 324 read with Section 506 of the IPC by the trial court.

2. After a period of six years, the appellant came to be served with show cause notice dated 24.07.2002 under the Punjab Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1970 (hereinafter referred to as ‘1970 Rules’ for brevity). Rule 13(i) of the ‘1970 Rules’ reads as follows:

“Special procedure in certain cases-Notwithstanding anything contained in rules 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12.

(i) Where any penalty is imposed on a Government employee on the ground of conduct which has led to his conviction on a criminal charge.

Provided that the Commission shall be consulted, where such consultation is necessary, before any orders are made in any case under this rule.”

The appellant responded to the notice. However, by order dated 13.03.2003, it was decided to remove the appellant. To continue with the narrative, as regards the first FIR relating to embezzlement, the Judicial Magistrate acquitted the appellant by order dated 22.12.2006. The fate of the criminal appeal against the judgment emanating from FIR No. 51/1995 was as follows:

The High Court sustained the conviction of the appellant under Section 324 and Section 506 of the IPC. However, it reduced the sentence under Section 324 to the period undergone and ordered a sentence of one month for offence under Section 506. This judgment was dated 09.04.2008.

3. The appeal preferred by the appellant against the order dated 13.03.2003 came to be disposed of by order dated 29.01.2009. By the said order, the appellate authority found inter-alia and ordered as follows:

“Section 307 IPC is not fallen under the definition of “Mortal Turpitude. But the sections i.e. 324 and 506 of the case are very small and the simple imprisonment. Therefore, it is abundantly and nor this offence is fallen under the category of “Moral Turpitude” and nor this case is belongs to government proceedings. This personal dispute with the appellant and on causing some simple injuries to the other person by the appellant. The Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court, by reducing his imprisonment, has dispensed with remaining imprisonment, only after undergoing 39 days imprisonment. The Hon’ble High Court has taken this matter as sympathetically, therefore in view of the above I, also by giving sympathy, is hereby set asides the termination order and is hereby punishment for the appellant that he will be not given nothing for the suspension period and this period will be declared as Dies-Non period. But this order, this appeal is disposed off.”

4. Being aggrieved by the order of the appellate authority noting that the appellant will not be given anything for the period of suspension and this period will be declared as dies-non, a civil suit came to be instituted on 09.12.2010 by the appellant. He sought a declaration to the effect that the order dated 13.03.2003 and the appellate authority’s order dated 29.01.2009 to the extent that the pay of the appellant was denied was illegal and arbitrary and against the Rules and that he was entitled to full pay for the period that he had been denied, the salary and benefits. He sought mandatory injunction to release the p