Back
2020 Supreme(P&H) 677
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Ritu Bahri, J.
Dhyan Singh - Appellant
Versus
State Of Haryana And Others - Respondent
CWP No. 23047 of 2017
Decided On : 09-01-2020
Mr. Gurinder Pal Singh, Advocate for the Appellant.; Mr. Harish Nain, AAG, Haryana. for the Respondent
The main legal point established in the judgment is the entitlement of an employee to consequential benefits, including salary and duty period, after acquittal in a criminal trial under the Prevention of Corruption Act.
Headnote:
Prevention of Corruption Act - Consequential Benefits - Sections 7 and 13 - [SUMMARY OF ACTS AND SECTIONS REFERENCED: The court discussed the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act, particularly Sections 7 and 13, and their implications on the entitlement of consequential benefits for the petitioner. The court also referred to various judgments related to the entitlement of employees for consequential benefits after acquittal under the Prevention of Corruption Act.]
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a former Inspector in the Haryana Roadways, sought inclusion of the period from his dismissal to his acquittal as period spent on duty and consequential benefits. The court analyzed the petitioner's service history, the criminal trial, and the subsequent reinstatement.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner was entitled to the period from dismissal to acquittal as duty period and granted him salary with interest, based on the interpretation of relevant service rules and precedents.
Issues: The key issues involved the entitlement of the petitioner to consequential benefits after acquittal under the Prevention of Corruption Act and the application of 'No Work No Pay' principle.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the interpretation of service rules and precedents to establish the petitioner's entitlement to consequential benefits after acquittal, emphasizing the distinction between criminal trial acquittal and disciplinary proceedings.
Final Decision: The court set aside the order rejecting the petitioner's claim and directed the respondents to treat the period from dismissal to acquittal as duty period and grant him salary with interest.
JUDGMENT
Ritu Bahri, J. - The petitioner is seeking direction to the respondents for setting aside the order dated 02.03.2017 (Annexure P-7) whereby the period he remained out of job due to dismissal from service till his reinstatement, has not been treated as period spent on duty.
2. The petitioner was intially appointed as Inspector in the Haryana Roadways on 19.06.1985 He was promoted as Chief Inspector vide order dated 15.11.2002 (Annexure P-1). An FIR was registered against him on 16.06.2006 under Sections 7 and 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. This FIR was registered at the instance of department relating to his official work. In view of registration of FIR, the petitioner was suspended w.e.f. 21.06.2006 vide order dated 21.06.2006 (Annexure P-2). Order of suspension dated 21.06.2006 was reviewed by the Transport Commissioner and he was ordered to be reinstated vide order dated 30.01.2007 (Annexure P-3). The learned ASJ vide judgment dated 24.08.2009 convicted the petitioner and ordered him to undergo sentence for a period of one year. In view of above conviction, the petitioner was ordered to be removed from service vide order dated 06.07.2010 (Annexure P-4). The petitioner filed an appeal i.e. CRA No. 2123-SB-2009 against the judgment of conviction dated 24.08.2009 which was set aside vide order dated 10.08.2015 (Annexure P-5). Thereafter the petitioner was reinstated vide order dated 01.08.2016 (Annexure P-6).
3. The claim of the petitioner for grant of consequential benefits arising out of his acquittal was rejected vide order dated 02.03.2017 (Annexure P-7) and the period from 06.07.2010 to 09.08.2015 (i.e. from the date of dismissal to the date of judgment of acquittal passed by the High Court) was not treated as period spent on duty.
4. The petitioner by way of this petition seeks to include the period from 06.07.2010 to 09.08.2015 as period spent on duty and consequential benefit of further promotion to the post of Station Supervisor and thereafter Traffic Manager at par with his junior. The service details of his junior are mentined in para 8 of the writ petition.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to the following judgments:-
1. Shashi Kumar vs. Uttri Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam and another 2005(1) S.C.T 576 (Annexure P-8)
2. Sucha Singh vs. State of Punjab and others 2014(1) S.C.T. 183 (Annexure P-9)
3. Ranbir Singh vs. D.H.B.V.N.L and others 2016(3) S.C.T. 511 (Annexure P-10) and
4. Lachhman Dass Bansal V/s. Punjab State Power Corporation Limited and others (Annexure P-11)
6. While referring above judgments, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that even in the case of acquittal by giving benefit of doubt under the Prevention of Corruption Act, an employee was held to be entitled for all consequential benefits including continuity of service and promotion etc.
7. Learned counsel for the State on the basis of stand taken in the written statement has argued that petitioner has been acquitted on the ground of benefit of doubt vide order dated 10.08.2015 (Annexure P-5) and the petitioner has tarnished the image and reputation being public servant. He has not rendered service during the period 06.07.2010 to 09.08.2015 and on the principle of 'No Work No Pay', he is not entitled to salary for this period. He has referred to decisions of Supreme Court in Commissioner of Police, New Delhi and another vs. Mehar Singh 2013 (7) SCC 685 , R.P. Kapur vs. Union of India and another AIR 1964 SC 787 and Deputy Inspector General of Police and another vs. S. Samuthiram 2013 (1) SCC 598.
8. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
9. In Deputy Inspector's case (supra), the Supreme Court was examining a case where the police official working in the Police Department was facing criminal trial under Sections 509 and 294 for eve teasing and at the same time he was dismissed in the departmental proceedings. The High Court allowed the writ petition and set aside the impugned order dismissing him from service
