STATE OF PUNJAB Vs. PURAN CHAND RAMNATH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE respondent, Puran Chand, was a Foot Constable in the police and because of his prosecution for the offence of theft under Section 380 of the Penal Code, he was suspended according to Rule 1g. 19 of the Punjab Police Rules, Volume II, 1934, on or about September 26, 1951. He was convicted of that offence by the trial Magistrate but on appeal was honourably acquitted on April 22, 1953, by the Sessions Judge of Amritsar. He was then reinstated obviously in the wake of Rules 16. 17 and 16. 19 of the Punjab Police Rules, Volume II, 1934. He claimed arrears of salary amounting to Rs. 1,509/5/4, at the rate of Rs. 80/- per mensem, for the period of suspension of eighteen months and twenty six days. The appellant, the State of Punjab, urged a number of defences to the claim of the respondent but only one of those defences is material in this second appeal and that is whether the respondent is entitled to claim arrears of salary for the suspension period?

(2.) THE trial Judge decreed the claim of the plaintiff to the amount of Rs. 1,188/6/6 deducting out of the claim amount the sum of money received by the respondent as suspension allowance and also deducting certain other amount as the claim with regard to it was found barred by time. The claim was found by the trial Court to be within time from the month of October 1951. The trial court allowed proportionate costs in favour of the respondent. The State of Punjab appealed and its appeal was dismissed by the appellate Court on 17-3-1956, on the only argument on its behalf having been rejected that a Civil Court cannot grant a decree for arrears of salary for the period of suspension in a case like the present.

(3.) IN this second appeal by the State, the learned counsel on its behalf contends that where under statutory rules, as in the present case, there is power of suspension, then it is discretionary with the departmental or executive authority to grant the officer on reinstatement full pay for the period of suspension, but there is no light in such officer which he can enforce through a Civil Court to make a claim for full pay where it is not allowed by the departmental or executive authority, In this respect he refers to Secretary of State v. Surinder Nath Goswami, ILR (1939) 1 Cal 46: (AIR 1938 Cal 759) and Rupa Ram v. Divisional Superintendent of North Western Railway, Lahore, AIR 1954 Punj 298, and points out that in Management of Hotel Imperial, New Delhi v. Hotel Workers' Union, (1960) 1 SCR 476: (AIR 1959 SC 1342) these two cases have been referred to with approval. In so far as the present case is concerned this last reference by the learned counsel is not quite accurate as, though those two cases have been referred to in the last mentioned case but not in reference to the argument that is urged by the learned counsel in the present case.