Employees acquitted of charges during suspension are entitled to full salary and benefits for the suspension period.

JUDGMENT :

Aman Chaudhary, J.

1. As it emerges, the petitioner, who was working as Inspector, Co-operative Societies, Bilaspur, was suspended on account of registration of an FIR against him and other members of Co-operative Societies on a complaint filed by Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Ambala, followed by other FIRs lodged by private members of the Navyug Co-operative Society, wherein he was acquitted.

2. Notably, the period of suspension w.e.f. 26.10.2008 till 29.06.2010 was accordingly, treated to be on duty, vide order dated 30.07.2019, albeit without any monetary benefits, except subsistence allowance, which was later increased from 50% to 75%.

3. To proceed further in the matter, it would be apposite to make a reference to Rules 7.3 and 7.5 Punjab Civil Services Rules, Vol. I, Part I, as applicable to the State of Haryana, in regard to the award of full salary during the period of suspension, relevant portion whereof reads thus:

xxx xxx xxx

4. The aforesaid Rules have been the subject matter in the case of Hukam Singh vs. State of Haryana [1], wherein the Division Bench while considering the scope of Rule 7.5 ibid, ultimately held the petitioner therein, who was acquitted for offenses under Sections 302, 307, and 324, read with Section 34 of the IPC by Hon'ble the Supreme Court, entitled to full salary and allowances for the period of his suspension and dismissal. Following the foregoing dictum, this Court in Ram Anjore vs. Uttari Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited through its Managing Director[2], observed that once an employee is absolved of charges levied, he is entitled to complete salary in light of the aforementioned Rules. The petitioner therein was suspended pursuant to his involvement in an offence under Sections 7 and 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, though he stood acquitted by the appellate Court, finding the charges against him unjustified.

5. The focal point articulated herein stands reiterated in a myriad of judgments, such as Ishwar Singh vs. State of Haryana [3]; Jagmohan Lal vs. State of Punjab[4]; Surjit Singh vs. State of Haryana and another[5] and Baldev Singh vs. State of Haryana[6], wherein while deciding similar issues, the Courts have recurrently ruled that employees acquitted of charges are generally entitled to full salary for the period of their suspension or wrongful dismissal, underscoring a commitment to socio-economic justice and fairness.

6. In Brahma Chandra Gupta vs. Union of India [7], a case similar to the one at hand, wherein the appellant was acquitted of the criminal charges under Sections 19(F) of the Indian Anns Act and 5 of the Indian Explosives Substances Act and also no disciplinary proceedings were ever initiated against him, Hon'ble the Supreme Court observed and held that, "...The appellant was a permanent UDC who has already retired on superannuation and must receive a measure of socio-economic justice. Keeping in view the facts of the case that the appellant was never hauled up for departmental enquiry, that he was prosecuted and has been ultimately acquitted, and on being acquitted he was reinstated and was paid full salary for the period commencing from his acquittal, and further that even for the period in question the concerned authority has not held that the suspension was wholly justified because three-fourth of the salary is ordered to be paid, we are of the opinion that the approach of the trial court was correct and unassailable. The learned Trial Judge on appreciation of facts found that this is a case in which full amount of salary should have been paid to the appellant on his reinstatement for the entire period. We accept that as the correct approach..

7. Significantly even in the case in hand, no depa