AJIT SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Regular Second Appeal has been preferred by the appellant - plaintiff, who was appointed as Mali-cum-Chowkidar with the respondents and had joined duty on 09.11.1995. During the course of his employment, he was involved in a criminal case i.e. FIR No.349 dated 20.11.1997, under Sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as 'IPC'). The appellant - plaintiff was convicted vide judgment dated 26.10.1999 and sentenced vide order dated 27.10.1999 to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life for offence committed under Section 302 IPC read with Section 34 IPC with fine of '2000/- with default stipulation. In pursuance to the said judgment of conviction and order of sentence, he was placed under suspension and thereafter, vide order dated 20.10.2000, dismissed from service, although his appeal against the conviction and sentence was pending before the Division Bench of this Court. The Division Bench of this Court, in appeal, acquitted the appellant - plaintiff and another co-accused Satish by giving them benefit of doubt vide judgment dated 10.09.2008, however, qua the other co-accused, conviction and sentence was upheld. After the acquittal, appellant - plaintiff submitted an application for reinstatement in service. Vide order dated 20.10.2010, dismissal order was revoked and he rejoined the service. He served a notice upon the respondents for granting him the benefit of full pay and allowances. Respondent - department had, after considering the application/ representation, reinstated him in service w.e.f. 20.11.1997 vide order dated 18.09.2009 and decision regarding arrears was to be taken later. The said aspect was decided by the respondents by granting him the subsistence allowance for the period of his suspension. The period between 20.11.1997 to 12.11.2000 was treated as duty period and the period from 13.11.2000 (the date of his conviction) to 17.09.2009 (the date of his reinstatement) as extraordinary leave. Appellant - plaintiff is claiming the benefit of full pay and allowances for the period of his suspension i.e. 20.11.1997 to 12.11.2000 and thereafter, the period between 13.11.2000 to 17.09.2009 along with interest.

(2.) The Civil Judge (Junior Division), Bhiwani, decreed the suit of the appellant - plaintiff vide judgment dated 27.02.2012 by holding the order dated 19.02.2010 passed by the respondents rejecting the back-wages as referred to above, as illegal, null and void with a declaration that the appellant - plaintiff is entitled to full back-wages from 10.11.1997 to 17.09.2009. This judgment and decree was challenged by the respondents before the District Judge, Bhiwani, in an appeal, who allowed the same vide judgment and decree dated 28.05.2014 and dismissed the suit of the appellant - plaintiff relying upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ranchhodji Chaturji Thakore Vs. The Superintendent Engineer, Gujarat Electricity Board, Himmatnagar (Gujarat) & another, 1997 2 RSJ 695 (SC)}, Union of India & others Vs. Jaipal Singh, 2004 2 RSJ 63} and Smt. K. Ponnamma Vs. The State of Kerala & others, 1997 3 RSJ 32}. This appeal has been filed challenging the judgment and decree passed by the lower Appellate Court reversing the judgment and decree passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Bhiwani, dated 27.02.2012.

(3.) It is the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that as per Rule 7.2 of the Punjab Civil Services Rules, Vol. 1 (as applicable to the State of Haryana), the appellant - plaintiff, in the light of the fact that he has been acquitted in the criminal case which was registered against him leading to his conviction because of which, he was initially suspended and thereafter, his services were dispensed with, would be entitled to not only reinstatement in service but also the all consequential benefits including full pay and allowances for the said period, for which period he was not able to perform his duties because of no fault of his, firstly, he being under suspension and thereafter, on his dismissal from service because of his conviction till his reinstatement. In support of this contention, he places reliance upon the judgments passed by the Division Bench of this Court in Hukam Singh Vs. The State of Haryana & another, 2001 1 RSJ 201}, Shashi Kumar Vs. Uttri Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam & another, 2005 1 RSJ 718}, CWP No.16192 of 2010, titled as 'Sukhchain Singh Vs. State of Punjab & another', decided on 18.03.2013, CWP No.15977 of 2012, titled as 'Piara Singh Vs. State of Punjab & others', decided on 26.04.2013, which has been upheld by the Division Bench of this Court in LPA No.1634 of2013, titled as 'State of Punjab & others Vs.Piara Singh', decided on 19.09.2013. He, thus, contends that the judgment and decree passed by the lower Appellate Court cannot sustain and deserves to be set aside and the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court restored.