IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Attar Singh .....Petitioner VERSUS State of Punjab and another .....Respondents Reserved on: 27.02.2026 Pronounced on: 10.03.2026 Uploaded on: 10.03.2026 Whether only the operative part of the judgment is pronounced? No Whether full judgment is pronounced? Yes CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR Present : Ms. Karina Kalra, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Vikas Arora, DAG, Punjab-State.

Mr. Viney Kumar, Advocate with Mr. Abhav Sharma, Advocate for respondent No.5.

HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J.

1. The present civil writ petition has been filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari seeking quashing of the order dated 30.08.2016 (Annexure P-8) passed by respondent No.2 - Municipal Corporation vide which the period of period of suspension of petitioner was ordered to be treated as leave period. A further prayer has been made for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to release the entire pay benefits for the suspension period from 06.12.2000 to 14.07.2011, along with interest at the rate of 18% per annum.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia contends that the petitioner was employed as a Clerk (non-provincialised cadre) with the Respondent No.2.-Municipal Corporation. On 06.12.2000, the petitioner was placed under suspension pursuant to the registration of FIR No.90 dated 08.12.2000 under Sections 464/468/471/120-B read with Section 511 of the IPC, Police Station Kotwali, on the allegation that he had connived with a contractor and tampered with official records. The petitioner faced the criminal trial, for which vide judgment dated 12.10.2010 (Annexure P-1), the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Ludhiana, acquitted the petitioner. The operative part of the acquittal order records that "the prosecution has failed to prove the charges framed against the petitioner beyond shadow of any reasonable doubt" and the petitioner was "acquitted by giving him benefit of doubt due to lack of evidence." Consequent to the acquittal, the petitioner was reinstated in service on 14.07.2011, subject to the final outcome of the pending departmental proceedings.

2.1. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner was subjected to multiple rounds of departmental inquiries. The first Inquiry Officer, the Superintending Engineer, submitted a report on 16.03.2014 (Annexure P-3) recommending that the inquiry be filed. Thereafter, a show cause notice dated 14.07.2015 (Annexure P-4) was issued to the petitioner, proposing that the suspension period be treated as "not on duty." The petitioner submitted a detailed reply dated 20.07.2015 (Annexure P-5). The matter was then marked to the Additional Commissioner (R) for a fresh inquiry, who submitted his report on 24.05.2016 (Annexure P-7), unequivocally recommending that the suspension period be treated as "duty period" for all purposes. Despite the consistent recommendations of the Inquiry Officers exonerating the petitioner, the Commissioner, respondent No.2, passed the impugned order dated 30.08.2016 (Annexure P-8), holding that the petitioner "shall not be paid any wages over and above the subsistence allowance already drawn during the period of suspension," albeit directing that for all other purposes, the period shall be treated as duty period.

2.2 Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order has been passed in complete disregard to the mandate of Rule 7.3-B of the Punjab Civil Services Rules, Volume I, Part I. He contended that sub- Rule (3) of Rule 7.3-B mandates that where a Government employee has been fully exonerated such that his suspension is held to be "wholly unjustified," he is entitled to full pay and allowances for the suspension period and the said period is to be treated as duty for all purposes under sub- rule (4). Drawing this Court's attention to the factual matrix, learned counsel emphasized th