The competent authority has the power to grant full pay and allowances for the period of suspension if it is of the opinion that the suspension was wholly unjustified.

JUDGMENT :

1. The petitioner herein seeks arrears of salary from 28-6-2005 to 26-3- 2008 and also for fixing his pensionary benefits on the basis of his last pay drawn by him. The aforesaid claim has been made on the following factual background :-

2. The petitioner while working as Head Constable in the Railway Protection Force (RPF) was placed under suspension on 28-6-2005, as offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 302 read with Section 149 & 307 read with Section 149 of the IPC were registered against him, but no departmental enquiry was initiated against him and ultimately, he was acquitted from criminal charges on 13-3-2008 by the jurisdictional criminal court extending the benefit of doubt to him pursuant to which he submitted joining to the respondent authorities and upon consideration, the suspension order dated 28-6-2005 was revoked by order dated 5-5-2008 and he was reinstated in service, but the period from 28-6-2005 to 26-3-2008 was treated as “no work no pay” on the basis of circular dated 5-9-1970 issued by the Railway Board and as per Rule 54-B(3) of the Fundamental Rules, which has been called in question by way of this writ petition stating inter alia that since the petitioner has been acquitted from criminal charges, therefore, he is entitled for full arrears of salary for the suspension period and also entitled for pensionary benefits and revised retiral benefits.

3. Reply has been filed opposing the averments made in the writ petition stating inter alia that since the petitioner has not been granted honourable acquittal, but he has been extended the benefit of doubt and circular dated 5-9-1970 clearly provides that in all cases of acquittal on other than benefit of doubt, the period of suspension should be treated as duty for all purposes and full pay and allowances should be given to the employees for the period of suspension. It has also been pleaded that the petitioner’s suspension is wholly unjustified, therefore, by virtue of Rule 54-B(3) of the Fundamental Rules, since the petitioner’s suspension is not justified, he will not be entitled to full pay and allowances to which he would have been entitled had he not been suspended and as such, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed.

4. Mr. Ravi Maheshwari, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, would submit that though the petitioner has been acquitted extending the benefit of doubt, yet, since he has been acquitted, therefore, he is entitled for full salary and wages during the period of suspension and therefore he is entitled for all the monetary benefits during the period of suspension and also on that basis, he will be entitled for revised pensionary benefits.

5. Mr. H.S. Ahluwalia, learned counsel appearing for the SECR/respondents, would submit that the circular dated 5-9-1970 clearly provides that only in cases of clean acquittal other than benefit of doubt, period of suspension has to be treated as duty for all purposes and the employees will be entitled for full pay and allowances, and since the petitioner has been extended the benefit of doubt, therefore circular dated 5-9-1970 would apply and the petitioner is not entitled for full pay and allowances during the suspension period. He would further submit that by virtue of Rule 54-B(3) of the Fundamental Rules, since the suspension was not wholly unjustified, therefore, the Railways are absolutely justified in granting 50% salary to the petitioner during the suspension period and other benefits arising out of that and as such, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed.

6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered their rival submissions made herein-above and also went through the record with utmost circumspection.

7. Admittedly, the petitioner was placed under suspension on 28-6-2005 on account of having been charge-sheeted for offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 302 read with Section 149 & 307 read with Section 149 of the IPC in which he has been acquitted by