An employee under suspension due to a pending criminal case cannot claim regularization of that suspension period until the case is resolved in their favor.

JUDGMENT :

PER DIXIT KRISHNA SHRIPAD, J :

This Intra-Court Appeal is directed against a learned Single Judge’s order dated 17.09.2025, whereby Respondent-employee’s W.P.(C) No.23367 of 2023 having been favoured, the relief has been accorded in the following words:

“7. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties, considering the submissions made and placing reliance on the provisions contained under Regulation-21 of the aforesaid regulation, it is the view of this Court that, release of the benefit for the period an employee remains under suspension can be withheld on three different eventualities. Since admittedly Petitioner has already been released from detention and thereafter he was allowed to join, as per the considered view of this Court Regulation-21 is not a bar to regularize the period of suspension and extend the benefit as due and admissible.

7.1. Therefore, this Court while disposing the Writ Petition directs Opposite Party No.2 to regularize the period of suspension from 01.07.2011 to 24.06.2012 and extend the benefit as due and admissible in favour of the Petitioner. This Court directs Opposite Party No.2 to take a decision as directed within a period of six (6) weeks from the date of receipt of this order.”

2. Learned counsel appearing for the Appellant submits that admittedly the Vigilance case is pending against the Respondent- employee and therefore, learned Single Judge is not right in according the relief in his favour. Learned counsel appearing for the Respondent- employee repeatedly draws our attention to the Rule position and says that once an employee who was detained in connection with a criminal case is released, the period of detention needs to be regularized, notwithstanding payment of subsistence allowance. He heavily banks upon Regulation 21 of Recruitment & Conditions of Service of Employees of the State Pollution Control Board, Odisha, Regulation 2011. He adds that the disciplinary inquiry that was proposed against his client has been dropped, he having already retired from service on superannuation.

3. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the Appeal papers, we are inclined to grant a limited indulgence in the matter as under and for the following reasons:

i) Ordinarily, in civilized jurisdictions, a public employee, on being detained in relation to a criminal case by the jurisdictional authorities, suffers suspension from service if that detention period is beyond a particular period subject to all just exceptions. It is admitted in this case that the Respondent-employee is implicated in a vigilance case and that he was arrested and detained during the period between 01.07.2011 and 24.06.2012. During the suspension period, he has been paid the subsistence allowance, as admissible under the extant regulations, is not disputed.

ii) The vehement submission of learned counsel for the Respondent- employee that under Regulation 21 of 2011 Regulation, once an employee is enlarged from confinement, he is entitled to have the suspension period regularized, needs to be examined. The said Regulation reads as under:

“(21) An employee against whom proceedings have been initiated either for his/her arrest for debt or on a criminal charge or who is detained under any Law providing for preventing detention shall be considered as under suspension for the period during which he/she is detained on custody or is undergoing imprisonment. He/ she will not be allowed to draw any pay and allowances (other than subsistence allowance) for such period until the termination of the proceedings taken against him or until he/she is released from detention and allowed to rejoin on his/her duty as the case may be.”

A perusal of the Reg