JUDGMENT :

JAGMOHAN BANSAL, J. 

1. The petitioner through instant petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India is seeking setting aside of order dated 04.09.2025 (Annexure P-8) and 07.08.2024 (Annexure P-6) whereby respondent has treated his suspension period as suspension and dismissal period as non-duty period. He is further seeking direction to respondent to release back wages for the period from the date of dismissal to reinstatement.

2. The petitioner in 2014 while posted as Assistant Sub Inspector was entrusted with investigation of FIR No.263 dated 28.11.2014. He was implicated by Vigilance Bureau, Ludhiana and embroiled in FIR No.05 alleging demand of illegal gratification. The respondent conducted departmental inquiry wherein he was found guilty. The disciplinary authority vide order dated 23.11.2020 dismissed him from service. He preferred an Special Judge, Ludhiana vide judgment dated 20.07.2023 acquitted him from all the criminal charges. He preferred CWP-13051-2024 before this Court seeking reinstatement. The said petition was disposed of vide order dated 29.05.2024 with a direction to respondent to consider his claim in accordance with law. The respondent vide order dated 07.08.2024 reinstated him, however, ordered to treat his dismissal period as non-duty period. Consequently, he was denied benefit of back wages, allowances and increment. He submitted a detailed representation which came to be dismissed vide memorandum dated 04.09.2025.

3. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that petitioner deserves back wages as he was implicated in a false case and kept out of service without his fault. The respondent has wrongly denied him benefit of back wages.

4. Heard the arguments and perused the record.

5. From the perusal of record, it is evident that petitioner was dismissed from service on account of demand of illegal gratification. The trial Court vide judgement dated 20.07.2023 acquitted him on the ground of benefit of doubt. The witnesses including complainant did not turn hostile. There was specific allegation of demand of Rs.20,000/-. A trap was laid and aforesaid amount was recovered from petitioner’s possession by Vigilance Staff. The trial Court as per its wisdom disapproved testimony of witnesses and acquitted the petitioner. The respondent on the direction of this Court considered his claim for reinstatement. The respondent did not examine judgment of acquittal and reinstated the petitioner assuming that he was honorably acquitted. The order of reinstatement as well as denial of back wages was passed mechanically. The petitioner has been granted benefit of reinstatement despite his involvement in a criminal case. This Court does not find any ground to grant him back wages.

6. In the wake of above discussions and findings, this Court is of the opinion that the petition deserves to be dismissed and accordingly dismissed.