BHIM SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner who was working as a Sub Inspector in the wireless wing of Haryana Police, was placed under suspension with effect from 25.4.1998 for having been arrested in case FIR No. 239 dated 25.4.1998 under Sections 148, 149, 308 IPC, Police Station Civil Lines, Rohtak, vide order dated 22.5.1998. He continued as such till 23.1.2001 when he was reinstated in service without prejudice to the Court case pending against him. He remained in judicial lockup with effect from 30.4.1998 to 15.2.1999. He was acquitted of the charge by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rohtak vide his judgment dated 24.3.2001 (Annexure P-1) on conclusion of the criminal trial against the petitioner.

(2.) Petitioner was issued show cause notice by the Superintendent of Police, (Telecommunications) dated 26.6.2001 as to why the period from 30.4.1998 to 15.2.1999 during which he remained in judicial custody be not treated as leave without pay (Annexure P-2). Reply to the show cause notice was given by the petitioner wherein he stated that he has been acquitted by the trial Court of the criminal charges on merits as he has been found to be innocent as his plea of alibi has been accepted by the Court on the ground that he was on night duty at Fatehabad which is at a distance of about 150 kms. from Rohtak where the incident had taken place and he had proved with absolute certainty completely excluding the possibility of his presence at the place of occurrence. This reply of the petitioner did not find favour with the Superintendent of Police and vide order dated 5.9.2001 (Annexure P-4) period from 30.4.1998 to 22.1.2001 was treated as suspension period and he was held not entitled to any amount except what he had already drawn.

(3.) Petitioner preferred an appeal dated 15.9.2001 before the Inspector General of Police, who decided that since the petitioner had remained in judicial lockup, as such, the period from 30.4.1998 to 15.2.1999 cannot be treated as period spent on duty but the same can be regularized by granting leave of kind due. The other period of suspension was ordered to be treated as spent on duty for all intents and purposes under Rule 7.3(2) of Civil Service Rules, Volume I Part I. Further, appeal preferred by the petitioner to the Director General of Police, Haryana, received the same fate as it was rejected vide order dated 25.1.2002 (Annexure P-8). Thereafter, the respondents proceeded to decide the period spent by him during his suspension and vide order dated 11.3.2002 (Annexure R-1) held as follows:-