A government servant suspended under mandatory service rules due to arrest in a criminal case (not initiated by the department) is not entitled to full pay and allowances for the suspension period, even upon acquittal, as such suspension is not "wholly unjustified" under FR 54-B(3).

ORDER :

ASHISH SHROTI, J.

Petitioner has filed this writ petition praying for a direction to respondents to pay her full pay and allowances for the period of suspension from 1/9/1999 to 30/8/2016. She has also prayed for interest on the aforesaid amount.

2. Facts necessary for decision of this case are that the petitioner was working as ANM and was posted at Sub-Health Centre, Badapura under Community Health Centre, Porsa, District Morena. A criminal case was registered against the petitioner at Police Station Mahua, District Morena for offence punishable under Section 307, 294, 341 & 34 of IPC. In connection with the said criminal case, she was arrested by the Police. Resultantly, she was placed under suspension by the respondents on 1/9/1999.

3. After investigation, the challan was filed and the petitioner was tried for the aforesaid offences. Trial concluded with judgment dated 18/11/2005, whereby, the petitioner was convicted under Section 307 & 34 of IPC and was directed to undergo imprisonment for five years with fine. Petitioner challenged the said judgment of conviction and sentence before this Court by filing Cr.A. No.810/2005. Criminal Appeal was allowed vide judgment dated 23/3/2017 (Annexure P/2) and the petitioner stood acquitted.

4. While the criminal appeal was pending before this Court, the petitioner attained the age of superannuation and stood retired from service w.e.f. 31/8/2016. After acquittal in the criminal case, she approached respondents for regularization of period of her suspension. Accordingly, vide impugned order dated 25/1/2019 (Annexure P/1), the period of suspension has been treated as on duty for all purposes except for pay and allowances for the said period. The petitioner is thus aggrieved by the denial of monetary benefit of full pay & allowances for the suspension period and is therefore, filed the present writ petition.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner challenged the impugned order on the ground that once the petitioner is acquitted in the criminal case, the very foundation of placing her under suspension vanished. He accordingly submitted that petitioner's suspension was unjustified and she is entitled to get full pay and allowances for the said period. Learned counsel also submitted that even though no charge-sheet was issued to the petitioner, however, an enquiry was conducted by the enquiry officer and he gave a verdict vide his report (filed at page no.13 of the reply) that the petitioner is not entitled for pay and allowances for the period of suspension. It is his submission that by denying the monetary benefits, petitioner has been punished for the offence in which she has been acquitted by the Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance upon the decision of Apex Court in the case of Brahma Chandra Gupta Vs. Union of India , reported in AIR 1984 SC 380 and the order passed by this Court in the case of Brijesh Singh Kushwaha Vs. State of M.P. & Ors. passed in W.P. No.22404/2021 to submit that once the petitioner is acquitted in the criminal case, the reason on account of which she was placed under suspension vanished. The learned counsel therefore, submitted that the petitioner's suspension was unjustified and therefore, he should be paid full pay and allowances for the said period.

6. On the other hand, counsel for the respondents supported the impugned action of the respondents and submitted that the petitioner got involved in the criminal case because of her own acts and the respondents were not instrumental in her prosecution. He further submitted that the petitioner was arrested by the police, she was required to be placed under suspension. Thus, it cannot be said that the petitioner's suspension was unjustified. He further submitted that the respondents have treated the suspension period of the petitioner as on duty for all purposes except the benefit of full pay & allowances. He referred to provisions of FR 54-B in support of his submissions. It is his submission