An employee acquitted of charges under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 is not entitled to full salary for the suspension period.

HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI J.

CM No. 6920-CWP-2023

1. Present application has been filed for fixing the writ petition to an early actual date of hearing.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a senior citizen of the age of 70 years, hence, his petition may kindly be heard and fixed to an early actual date of hearing.

3. Notice of the application to the counsel opposite.

4. Mr. Pankaj Middha, learned Additional Advocate General, Haryana, who is present in court, accepts notice on behalf of appellants-State and raises no objection for the grant of prayer as raised in the present application.

5. Keeping in view the above, application is allowed and the writ petition is taken up for hearing today.

CWP No. 20489 of 2014

6. In the present petition, the grievance of the petitioner is that while he was in service, an FIR was registered against him on 12.04.2010 under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Keeping in view the registration of the said FIR, the petitioner was arrested on 13.04.2010 and he remained in custody from the said date upto 01.06.2010. Thereafter, though the petitioner was released from the custody but he was placed under suspension and during the period of suspension itself, the petitioner attained the age of superannuation and retired on 31.12.2010.

7. After the trial, the petitioner was acquitted by giving him benefit of doubt and on the basis of the judgment of the learned Special Judge, Kurukshetra dated 27.09.2012, the petitioner has raised a claim that he is entitled for full salary for the period the petitioner remained under suspension as he has already been acquitted of the allegations alleged in the FIR.

8. The respondents, on the other hand, submits that in the present case, the petitioner was arrested red handed by the Vigilance Bureau on 12.04.2010 accepting bribe from a farmer and an FIR No. 5 dated 12.04.2010 was registered against him on the basis of a complaint made by the complainant and the department had only executed the rules governing the service and suspended the petitioner from service as he was arrested and was behind bars after being arrested on 12.04.2010. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that even if the petitioner has been acquitted, he is not entitled for any actual financial benefit for the suspension period, though the said period has already been treated as a duty period for all other intents and purposes.

9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record with their able assistance.

10. The only question arises in the present petition is whether, upon acquittal by giving the benefit of doubt to the petitioner, the petitioner will be entitled for the financial benefits for the period when he was under suspension to the tune that he should be paid full salary for the said period or not. The said question is no longer res-integra. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India while considering the case of Raj Narain Vs. Union of India and others, 2019(2) SCT 582, held that where an employee has been acquitted and claims the payment of back wages, the same cannot be granted retrospectively and the employee will only be entitled for prospective benefits as the department is not at fault. The relevant paragraph of the said judgment is as under :-

“5. This Court in Ranchhodji Chaturji Thakore (supra) considered the case of an employee who sought back wages for the period he was kept out of duty during the pendency of a criminal case for his involvement in an offence under Section 302, IPC. The claim of the Petitioner therein was that he was entitled to full wages on his acquittal by the Criminal Court. This Court rejected the said submission by holding that the question of payment of back wages would arise only in case of termination of service, pursuant to findings recorded in a departmental enquiry. In the event of the dismissal order being set aside by the Court, the delinquent employee would be entitled to claim back wages as he was unla