220 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 22.09.2025 STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS ... APPELLANTS VS.

PHOOL MATI ALIAS PHOOL WATI .. RESPONDENT CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHWANI KUMAR MISHRA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ROHIT KAPOOR Present: Mr. Pankaj Mulwani, Sr. DAG, Haryana.

Mr. R.S.Malik, Advocate, for the respondent.

****

ASHWANI KUMAR MISHRA , J. (ORAL)

This appeal arises out of an order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 05.02.2020 in CWP-19659-2018, whereby order dated 20.12.2017, passed by appellant No.3, is modified and the benefit of salary has been allowed to the respondent-petitioner for the period from 27.06.2011 till the date of her reinstatement.

2. Undisputed facts of the case are that while working in the Government High School, Katlupur, Tehsil Kharkhoda, District Sonipat, the respondent-petitioner came to be implicated in an offence under Sections 498- A and 304-B IPC vide FIR No. 178 dated 08.06.2011. The respondent- petitioner was arrested. Since she was in judicial custody during trial, as such, the respondent was dismissed from service on 27.06.2011. The basis of the dismissal order was the implication of the respondent-petitioner in the aforesaid criminal acts. It transpires that ultimately the trial concluded with the acquittal of the writ petitioner vide order dated 25.09.2013. An application was moved for recalling the order of dismissal on the ground that the writ petitioner has been acquitted. Since no decision was taken, the writ petitioner came before this Court in CWP-4037- 2015. This petition was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to pursue the remedy in appeal. Thereafter, an appeal was preferred which was allowed vide order dated 20.12.2017. By this order, the dismissal of the writ petitioner was set aside and she was held entitled to continuity in service but without any pay on the principle of no work no pay. The dismissal order dated 27.06.2011 has been set aside in the appeal. It is this order which came to be challenged before this Court in CWP-19659-2018 which has since been allowed by the learned Single Judge vide judgment dated 05.02.2020.

3. The learned Single Judge held the writ petitioner entitled to salary alongwith arrears within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

4. Aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment, State of Haryana has filed the present appeal.

5. It is submitted that the dismissal of the writ petitioner was on account of her implication in a criminal case under Sections 498-A and 304-B IPC. It is urged that the writ petitioner remained in custody and was ultimately acquitted in the year 2013. It is further submitted that the challenge to the order of dismissal was instituted by approaching this Court and pursuant to the orders passed by this Court, the authorities reinstated the respondent- petitioner in service. It is also urged that the denial of salary for the period during which the writ petitioner did not work is in consonance with the principles of no work no pay and the learned Single Judge wrongly intervened in the matter so as to grant salary for such period.

6. Learned counsel for the writ petitioner, on the other hand, submits that no proper departmental inquiry was conduced and, in view of the provisions of clause 7.5 of the applicable rules, the writ petitioner was entitled to salary once the acquittal has attained finality.

7. The facts as have been noticed above are not in dispute. It is undisputed that the writ petitioner was incarcerated in jail on account of her implication in the criminal case instituted on account of the unnatural death of her daughter-in-law. She was ultimately acquitted by the trial Court in the year 2013. On a challenge laid to the order of dismissal, the writ petitioner was relegated to the remedy of appeal wherein the dismissal order was set aside. The question that arises for our consideration in facts of this case is as to whether the respondent-petitioner was e