The principle of 'no work no pay' applies in service jurisprudence, denying backwages to an employee absent due to imprisonment for a crime.

JUDGMENT :

Ajay Bhanot, J.

1. Heard Shri Akash Khare, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent No.1-State and Shri Abhishek Srivastava, learned counsel for the respondents No.2 and 3.

2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 23.04.2020 declining to pay arrears of salary to the petitioner for the period commencing from 23.01.2015 to 18.12.2018. The impugned order records that the petitioner was imprisoned from 23.01.2015 to 18.12.2018 after a criminal case was registered against him under Section 13(1)(b) read with Section 13(1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The F.I.R. was filed by one S.S. Chaudhary, Superintendent of Police, Anti Corruption Department against the petitioner on the complaint received from a private electricity consumer. The salary has been refused on the application of the principle of “no work no pay.”

3. Briefly put the prosecution case in the F.I.R. was that the petitioner had demanded bribes for electricity connection from a consumer. The petitioner was thereafter confined to jail from 23.01.2015 to 18.12.2018 during the course of the trial. The petitioner did not discharge his duties for the aforesaid period of three years. Admittedly, the criminal case was not instituted at the behest of the respondent-corporation. The respondent-corporation who is the employer of the petitioner did not create any hindrance nor prevented the petitioner from working on his post. No departmental proceedings were taken out against the petitioner by the respondent-corporation/his employer in the said case.

4. The question that arises for consideration is that whether the petitioner who was absent from duties for the aforesaid period of almost three years and had rendered no work during the said period is entitled to backwages and arrears and whether the principle of “no work no pay” is liable to be relaxed in the instant case.

5. The principle of “no work no pay” is a salutary principle of general application in service jurisprudence. The principle is excepted only in rare instances like in the event an employer prevents an employee from discharging his duties or creates impediments in regard thereof.

6. The discussion has the benefit of authorities in point. The Supreme Court in Reserve Bank of India v. Bhopal Singh Panchal, 1994 SCC (1) 541 was faced with the issue of grant of backwages to absentee who was not kept from his duties by his employer, and held as under:

"We have already pointed out the effect of the relevant provisions of Regulations 39, 46 and 47. The said regulations read together, leave no manner of doubt that in case of an employee who is arrested for an offence, as in the present case, his period of absence from duty is to be treated as not being beyond circumstances under his control. In such circumstances, when he is treated as being under suspension during the said period, he is entitled to subsistence allowance. However, the subsistence allowance paid to him is liable to be adjusted against his pay and allowances if at all he is held to be entitled to them by the competent authority. The competent authority while deciding whether an employee who is suspended in such circumstances is entitled to his pay and allowances or not and to what extent, if any, and whether the period is to be treated as on duty or on leave, has to take into consideration the circumstances of each case. It is only if such employee is acquitted of all blame and is treated by the competent authority as being on duty during the period of suspension that such employee is entitled to full pay and allowances for the said period. In other words, the Regulations vest the power exclusively in the Bank to treat the period of such suspension on duty or on leave or otherwise. The power thus vested cannot be validly challenged. During this period, the employee renders no work. He is absent for reasons of his own involvement in the misconduct and the Bank is in no way responsible for keepin