The central legal point established in the judgment is the entitlement of an employee to pay and allowances during the period of absence from service following exoneration on criminal and departmental charges.

JUDGMENT

G.S. Sandhawalia, J. (Oral) - Present letters patent appeal is directed against the order dated 03.03.2016 passed by learned Single Judge in CWP No.20271 of 2015 filed by the respondent herein.

2. Learned Single Judge quashed the order dated 01.06.2012 and 01.05.2015, Annexures P-13 and P-17, respectively passed by the appellant-Nigam. Vide order dated 01.06.2012 (Annexures P-13), the appellant-Nigam came to the conclusion that charges in the departmental proceedings were not proved and the charge-sheet No.23 dated 07.06.2011 was dropped. Resultantly, the intervening period from the date of his arrest from 23.02.1995 to date of his reinstatement 18.01.2011 was to be treated as continuous service for the purpose of pension, but on the principle of 'No work no pay' wages were not to be paid. The promotion of the official from ALM to Linesman was also to be considered under the relevant rules. Similarly, the authority vide order dated 01.05.2015 (Annexure P-17) treated the period from 04.12.1997 to 18.01.2011 for the purposes of continuation of services, keeping in view the orders passed on an earlier occasion in CWP No.16599 of 2011 filed by the employee. Vide the said order, the authority came to the conclusion that the employee was not entitled for the pay and allowances for the intervening period on the principle of no work no pay, on account of his conviction in the criminal case and that the Nigam was not to be saddled for the period he was out of service.

3. Learned Single Judge noted the judgment of the three Judge Bench of the Apex Court passed in Civil Appeal No.4114 of 2006 titled as Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam and another Vs. Shashi Kumar decided on 26.09.2013 and it was noticed that the charges levelled against the writ petitioner were not proved. Therefore, the charge-sheet had been dropped and the intervening period i.e. 23.02.19995 to 17.01.2011 had to be treated as continuous service for the purpose of pension, but without any wages. The competent authority having not considered the relevant provisions of Rule 7.5 of the Civil Services Rule, Vol. I, Part-I, the conclusion arrived at that it was for the officer concerned, as per the judgment of the Apex Court passed in Shashi Kumar's case (supra), to apply the provisions of Rules 7.3 and 7.5. Resultantly, on account of the said factor, the orders were quashed and directions had been issued to make payment of full salary and allowance to the writ petitioner for the period he remained out of service i.e. from 23.02.1995 to 17.01.2011 alongwith interest @ 9% per annum.

4. Senior counsel for the Nigam has vehemently argued that on account of the own conduct as such of the employee, the Nigam is not required to pay salary for the said period. For the said purpose he has placed reliance upon the judgments passed in Management of Reserve Bank of India, Delhi Vs. Bhopal Singh Panchal, 1994 (1) SCT 505; Union of India and others Vs. Jaipal Singh, 2004 (1) SCT 108; Gr. Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Vs. M. Prabhakar Rao, 2011 (4) SCT 46 and Raj Naraian Vs. Union of India and others, 2019 (2) SCT 582.

5. Senior counsel for the employee on the other hand has relied upon the three Judge Bench judgment passed in Brahma Chandra Gupta Vs. Union of India, (1984) 2 SCC 433 and Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. & others Vs. Nathu Ram, (2010) 1 SCC 428, to submit that the writ petitioner had been exonerated on the criminal side and on the departmental side also the department was not able to nail him on account of any misconduct. Therefore, for no fault on his part, he cannot be denied his dues for the period he could not serve the Nigam on account of his conviction in the criminal proceedings, since he was reinstated after his acquittal. Reference has also been made to Rule 7.3 and 7.5 as reproduced in the writ petition, which are stated to be applicable to the Nigam.

6. We are in consonance with the arguments raised by the Senior Counsel for the employee.

7. A perusal of the