IMPORTANT POINT
An employee who is suspended without any inquiry in contemplation and subsequently acquitted in a criminal case is entitled to salary for the period of suspension and may be entitled to back wages, as established by legal precedent.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Sri Vimal Chandra Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State respondents.

2. Petitioner before this Court, who is working as a Routine Grade Clerk in the institution, namely Government Girls Inter College, Fatehpur, is aggrieved by the order dated 1st May, 2018, whereby petitioner's claim for regular payment of salary for the period he remained under suspension on account of involvement in a criminal case, has come to be rejected.

3. Briefly stated facts of the case are that petitioner while working as Routine Grade Clerk in the institution came to be implicated in connection with criminal offence registered as Case Crime No. 177 of 2009 under Sections 396, 412, 201 & 120-B I.P.C., District - Fatehpur and remained in jail from 9th August, 2009 to 1st August, 2010 and then continued in detention from 1st August, 2010 on-wards until he was finally released pursuant to the judgment of the acquittal passed by the Sessions Court dated 30th January, 2016 in Sessions Trial No.- 606 of 2010, on 6th February, 2016. As a consequence to the implication of the petitioner in a criminal case and detention in jail, he had also been placed under suspension by the disciplinary authority vide order dated 5th October, 2009, however, no disciplinary proceeding was initiated ever against the petitioner and after his acquittal in the criminal case and consequentially being released from jail, he came and joined the institution pursuant to the order of reinstatement dated 4th October, 2016 revoking his suspension.

4. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that since the respondents did not proceed to hold disciplinary inquiry by holding departmental proceedings against the petitioner and petitioner was simply placed under suspension on account of his detention in jail, upon his reinstatement with the revocation of suspension order, petitioner became entitled to salary for the period he remained under suspension. It is submitted that petitioner since has been finally acquitted in the criminal case then on the principle that petitioner has been restrained under a circumstances beyond his control and also there being order of suspension, from discharging his duties as a clerk in the institution, the respondents could not have denied payment of salary to the petitioner for the period in question. He further submits that order of reinstatement dated 4th October, 2016 clearly recorded that this order was being passed subject to any contrary order being passed in appeal against the acquittal and since no appeal to the best knowledge of the petitioner has been preferred against the acquittal inasmuch as the counter affidavit is also silent about the same, respondents are not justified in rejecting the claim of the petitioner for payment of salary for the period in question on the principle of 'no work no pay'. He submits that petitioner could not have worked on account of being under detention in jail which was beyond his control and so it was his legitimate expectation that as and when he would be released after grant of bail or acquittal, he would not only resume his duty as clerk but he would be compensated for the period he had remained under suspension for implication in the criminal case.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also placed reliance upon a judgment of Supreme Court in the case of Brahma Chandra Gupta v. Union of India, AIR 1984 SC 380.

6. Per contra, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel, defending the order impugned herein this petition, has sought to contend that the department cannot be blamed for petitioner not being permitted to discharge his duty as admittedly petitioner was under detention and as per the relevant service rules he was required to be placed under suspension. It is also sought to be urged that even though petitioner has been acquitted but every acquittal is not a honourable acquittal so as to make him entitled fo