(211)

2023:PHHC: 006790-DB

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH

LPA-343-2023 (O&M)

Date of decision:- 18.01.2024

State of Haryana and others

...Appellant(s)

Versus

EASI Mohd. Alam @ Alam

...Respondent(s)

CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AMAN CHAUDHARY

Present:

Mr. Deepak Balyan, Additional Advocate General, Haryana,

for the appellants.

Mr. Mohnish Sharma, Advocate,

for the respondent.

* * * *

RITU BAHRI, A.C.J. (ORAL)

CMs-975 & 976-LPA-2023

For the reasons mentioned therein, the delay of 62 days in re-

filing and 53 days in filing the appeal is condoned.

The applications stand disposed of.

LPA-343-2023

The appellants have come up in appeal against the judgement and

order dated 19.09.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge, whereby the writ

petition filed by the petitioner (respondent herein) was allowed by quashing the

order dated 20.11.2017 (Annexure P-2) and the order dated 01.01.2018

(Annexure P-3) denying him back-wages.

2.

In the present case, FIR No. 476 dated 16.11.2002 under

Sections 223 and 224 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) was registered against the

respondent at Police Station Sarai Khawaja, Faridabad on the allegation that

one Tahir, who was accused in FIR No. 427 dated 28.10.2002 under

Sections 395, 397, 364, 342, 506 & 412 IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act,

had succeeded in escaping from his custody due to negligence on his part. The

respondent was accordingly convicted for the commission of offence

punishable under Section 223 IPC and sentenced to undergo simple

imprisonment for a period of two years vide judgement dated 01.10.2011 and

the order of sentence dated 05.10.2011 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, 1^st

Class, Faridabad. Thereafter, he filed an appeal before the Additional District

and Sessions Judge, Faridabad which was dismissed on 06.04.2012. Being

aggrieved, he filed Criminal Revision No. 1309 of 2012 which was allowed by

this Court vide order dated 09.06.2017 setting aside his conviction. The

respondent after acquittal as per the order dated 09.06.2017 has been re-instated

AMODH SHARMA

2024.01.22 00:25

I attest to the accuracy and

authenticity of this

order/judgement

LPA-343-2023 (O&M)

2023:PHHC: 006790-DB

-2-

in service and is seeking salary and consequential benefits for the period he

remained out of service.

3.

The learned Single Judge in the impugned judgement has referred

to Rule 7.3(2) of the Punjab Civil Service Rules, Vol. 1, Part I holding that a

government employee, who has been dismissed/removed/compulsorily retired

or suspended, if re-instated upon having been fully exonerated, would be

entitled to full salary and allowances for the period he remained out of service.

4.

The learned Single Judge has also referred to the judgement

dated 13.10.2014 passed by this Court in CWP-17952-2012 titled as Kailash

Chander Sharma Vs State of Haryana and another, wherein it has been held

that where the departmental proceedings are dropped by recording the fact that

the charges are not proved, the denial of consequential benefits of actual arrears

of the salary for the period the person remained out of service on the basis of

‘no work no pay’ is arbitrary and cannot be sustained.

5.

In paragraph 15 at page 82 of the order dated 09.06.2017 passed

by this Court in Criminal Revision No. 1309 of 2012, it has been observed that

the prosecution had failed to adduce any credible and conclusive evidence to

prove beyond any shadow of doubt that Tahir had been kept in confinement in

the capacity of an accused and consequentially the petitioner was under a

legally bounden duty to keep him secure in confinement. The essential

ingredient for commission of offence under Section 223 IPC had not been

esta