Treating Judicial Custody as 'Leave Without Pay' After Acquittal is Arbitrary: Rajasthan High Court - 2026-05-27

Caught in the Crossfire: High Court Intervenes in Arbitrary Salary Denial

In a significant ruling concerning the rights of government employees following criminal acquittal, the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jaipur has intervened in a disciplinary matter involving a police constable. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Anand Sharma set aside an administrative order that, paradoxically, exonerated an employee while simultaneously denying him salary for the period he spent in judicial custody.

The Saga of Harbajan Singh

The petitioner, Harbajan Singh, served as a Constable within the Rajasthan Police Department. His career hit an unforeseen hurdle in August 2000, when he was arrested and detained in connection with criminal charges under the IPC and the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. Following his arrest, he was placed under suspension.

After a protracted legal battle, Singh was fully acquitted in August 2002. Shortly thereafter, his suspension was revoked, and a departmental inquiry followed. The Disciplinary Authority exonerated him of all charges, explicitly stating that he was entitled to full pay and allowances for the duration of his suspension (covering August 2000 to September 2002). However, in a contradictory final clause, the same order deemed his period of judicial custody—a subset of the suspension—as "absence from duty," converting it into "leave without pay."

A Tug-of-War of Interpretations

The petitioner contended that this move was not only internally inconsistent but fundamentally punitive. The respondents relied heavily on the "no work, no pay" doctrine, arguing that as the constable did not perform official duties during his incarceration, he could not claim remuneration, and that the Disciplinary Authority maintained the discretion to regulate that period as leave.

Legal Analysis: The Equity of Acquittal

The Court scrutinized the decision through the lens of Rule 54 of the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951 . The core issue was whether an authority can retroactively penalize an employee for a period of detention when that detention was not a result of "voluntary" absence but forced custody, ending in total acquittal.

The High Court drew guidance from the Supreme Court precedent in Raj Narain v. Union of India & Others , which established that back wages are a matter of fairness when an employee is cleared of charges. Integrating recent views from the Allahabad High Court, Justice Sharma observed that a clear distinction must be drawn between an under-trial prisoner and an individual on bail; the former is physically prevented from performing duties, and penalizing them with "no work, no pay" after acquittal creates an inequitable financial burden.

Key Observations

The judgment highlighted the internal failure of the Disciplinary Authority's logic:

• "The canon of reasoned decision making prohibits the Authority from awarding a benefit and in the very next breath withdrawing it without any reasoned or recorded justification."
• "The jurisprudential yardstick... is that where detention is the cause of non-performance and the accused is ultimately acquitted, equity demands that the employee should not be saddled with financial prejudice."
• "The impugned part of the operative paragraph... is manifestly inconsistent with the penultimate part of the same operative paragraph."

Final Verdict: Administrative Consistency

The Court quashed the punitive clause of the 2003 order, ruling it "arbitrary" and "unreasonable." The respondents have been directed to treat the entire period of suspension, including the time spent in custody, as service for all purposes. The Rajasthan Police must now pay the arrears to the petitioner within ten weeks.

This judgment serves as a vital reminder to administrative bodies that they cannot use self-defeating language to circumvent the rights of an exonerated employee. It reinforces the principle that when the State’s action—or the circumstances surrounding a criminal investigation—prevents a public servant from working, the burden of that interregnum cannot be shifted to the employee upon their acquittal.