Acquittal of blame in Rule 7.5 of the Punjab Civil Services Rules means acquittal of the criminal charge, regardless of whether the acquittal was honorable or based on a benefit of doubt.

J.N.Kaushal, J.

1. The petitioner, Jagmohan Lal, was an overseer in the Irrigation Branch of the Punjab Public Works Department. He was placed under suspension on 19-3-1953 since he was arrested in a criminal case. He remained under suspension from 19-3-1953 till 20-4-1960. The allegation against the petitioner was that he had accepted illegal gratification from the various firms and contractors engaged in the excavation works on the Nangal Hydel Channel as a motive or reward for doing their official act. The case was tried by Shri Pritam Singh Jain, Special Judge, Ambala, who on 6-9-1957 acquitted the petitioner. The order of acquittal was maintained by the High Court, vide its judgment dated 20-1-1960.

After the order of the High Court, the petitioner was reinstated by the Government, but his period of suspension was not treated as the period spent on duty. A number of representations were made by him but to no effect. The claim of the petitioner for full pay and allowances for the period of suspension was turned down and, according to the allegations of the petitioner, it created an impediment in his future promotion also. The present writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution has been filed for quashing the orders of the Government contained in Annexures C and D to the petition by which it was held that the petitioner was not entitled to his full pay and allowances for the period of his suspension.

2. In annexure D, the Government has for its view on Rules 7.5 and 7.6 of the Punjab Civil Services Rules , Volume I, Part I. It has been specifically stated that Rule 7.3, does not apply to the petitioner. In the return filed on behalf of the State, the stand taken by them is that as the petitioner was acquitted after giving benefit of doubt, his suspension could not be deemed to be wholly unjustified and accordingly he was not entitled to full pay and allowances for the period of his suspension.

At another place, it is also mentioned that the petitioner was not acquitted honourably and was given the benefit of doubt. Mr. H. L. Soni who appears for the State, places reliance on Rules 7.5 read with Rule 7.3 of the said rules. According to him, it was Rule 7.3 which, in fact, was applicable. This stand is, obviously, opposed to the stand which was taken on behalf of the State in annexure D. There the reliance was placed only on Rules 7.5 and 7.6.

3. In my opinion, the relevant rule is 7.5 The heading under which this rule has been framed is "Suspension During Pendency of Criminal Proceedings etc.". The rule reads like this:

"7.5. A servant of Government against whom proceedings have been taken either for his arrest for debt or on a criminal charge or who is detained under any law providing for preventive detention should be considered as under suspension for any periods during which he is detained in custody or is undergoing imprisonment, and not allowed to draw any pay and allowances (other than any subsistence allowance that may be granted in accordance with the principles laid down in Rule 7.2) for such periods until the final termination of the proceedings taken against him or until he is released from detention and allowed to rejoin duty, as the case may be. An adjustment of his allowances for such period should thereafter be made according to the circumstances of the case, the full amount being given only in the event of the officer being acquitted of blame or (if the proceedings taken against him were for his arrest for debt), of its being proved that the officers liability arose from circumstances beyond his control or the detention being held by the competent authority to be unjustified."

There is no doubt that the rule contemplates the payment of the full amount only in the event of the officer being acquitted of blame. The stand of the Government indicated in annexure D was in these words-- ". . . . According to Rule 7.5 ibid full amount has to be given only if the official is acquitted of the bla