IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

248 CWP-25850-2021 Date of decision: 10.02.2025 Ashok Kumar ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMAN CHAUDHARY Present: Mr. Harinder Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Swapan Shorey, DAG, Punjab.

*****

AMAN CHAUDHARY, J. (Oral)

1. Prayer made in the present petition is for quashing the order dated 02.11.2021, Annexure- P-17 passed by respondent No. 2 whereby claim of the petitioner for treating his period of suspension from 10.02.2004 - 19. 06.2004 and from 08.11.2004 to 03.08.2005 as duty period and the arrears of full pay and other allowances has been rejected.

2. The petitioner was placed under suspension due to initiation o f disciplinary proceedings for major penalty, however minor punishment of stoppage of one increment without cumulative effect had been imposed upon him vide order dated 16.09.2008, Annexure P-2. He claims for the salary and allowances for the suspension period from 10.02.2004 to 19.06.2004. Reference is made to the Instructions dated 26.03.1990, Annexure P-19 and para 23 (iii) of the writ petition, the applicability whereof having been not controverted in the corresponding para of t he written statement, the claim deserves acceptance, the relevant portion of which reads thus:-

“2. In the aforesaid situation by taking into consideration the Government of India letter No.11012/15/85-Establishment (E) dated 21.12.185, it has been decided, if the disciplinary proceedings have been initiated against the employee for imposing major punishment and in conclusion minor punishment is imposed when his suspension shall be unjustified and the order HAMANT should be passed to pay him the full salary and allowances for the period of suspension.”

3. The petitioner having placed under suspension on account of the fact that he had been implicated in FIR No.79 dated 27.11.2003 registered under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC and 13(1)(c), 13(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption act 1988, at P.S. Vigilance Bureau, Ludhiana. However, he was acquitted vide judgment dated

28.08.2012 passed by the Special Court, Rupnagar.

4. Insofar as the salary for the period of suspension from 30.11.2004 to 11.08.2005 is concerned, it would be profitable to refer to Anil Kumar Tyagi vs. Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. and another ¹ , against which LPA and SLP stand dismissed, wherein while interpreting Rules 7.3 and 7.5 Punjab Civil Services Rules, Vol. I, Part I, the petitioner was held entitled to the monetary benefits consequent to his acquittal for offences under Sections 7 and 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

5. In Manjit Kumar @ Goldi vs. State of Punjab ² , wherein the petitioner, a Constable, was dismissed d ue to pendency of criminal proceedings initiated against him, wherein he stood acquitted in appeal, discussing the provision of Rule 7.3 ibid , the importance of due process and the implications of wrongful dismissal were u nderscored, particularly in c ases where an employee is exonerated of criminal charges, it was observed that, “A bare reading of the provision would make it clear that a Government employee who has been dismissed, removed, compulsorily retired or suspended, is reinstated upon having been fully exonerated, then he shall be given full pay and allowances to which he would have been entitled to had he not been dismissed, removed, compulsorily retired or suspended as the case

1 CWP-13988-2015, decided on 24.01.2017 .

HAMANT 2 2017 (4) PLR 11 may be. In the facts of the present case, once the order of conviction of the petitioner under the provisions of the NDPS Act and Prevention of Corruption Act has been set aside and the petitioner stands completely exonerated, he would be entitled to all benefits as provided for under Rule 7.3 of the Punjab Civil Services Rules. Dismissal from service was only on account of the pendency of the criminal proceedings having been