SUCHA SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner while serving as Assistant Sub Inspector in the Punjab Police was convicted under Sections 7 and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act vide judgment dated 17.8.2000 passed by Special Judge, Jalandhar. Based upon such conviction, order dated 6.11.2000 was passed by the Senior Superintendent of Police, Jalandhar dismissing him from service. Vide order dated 31.1.2001 passed by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Jalandhar Range the petitioner was re -instated in service without prejudice to the outcome of Criminal Appeal No. 756 -SB of 2000 that the petitioner had filed in this Court against the order of conviction. However, in terms of order dated 16.7.2010 passed by the Inspector General of Police, Zone -II, Jalandhar, the order of re -instatement dated 31.1.2001 was revoked and the earlier order of dismissal dated 6.11.2000 passed by the Senior Superintendent of Police, Jalandhar dismissing the petitioner from service was upheld. Criminal Appeal No. 756 -SB of 2000 was allowed by this Court vide judgment dated 16.11.2010 at Annexure P1 and as such, the order of conviction dated 17.8.2000 against the petitioner was set aside. In the light of the judgment of conviction having been set aside by this Court, the Director General of Police, Punjab passed orders dated 4.7.2011, Annexure P5, reinstating the petitioner in service. The petitioner, however, was held not entitled to the salary/allowances for the period he remained out of service. Consequently, the Commissioner of Police, Jalandhar issued orders dated 15.7.2011 re -instating the petitioner with immediate effect, yet denying him salary/allowances for the period he had remained out of service.

(2.) THE challenge in the instant writ petition to the orders dated 4.7.2011, Annexure P5, and dated 15.7.2011, Annexure P6, is confined to the extent the petitioner had been denied the arrears of salary/allowances for the period that he had remained out of service.

(3.) PER contra, learned State counsel would contend that the petitioner had been re -instated upon his order of conviction having been set aside, but the Department was in no way concerned with the criminal case and, therefore, cannot be saddled for the back wages for the period when he was out of service. The principle of 'No work No pay' has been invoked. Reliance has been placed by the learned counsel towards such submission upon two judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court i.e. Ranchhodji Chaturji Thakore v. Superintending Engineer, Gujarat Electricity Board, Himmatnagar (Gujarat), : 1997 (1) SCT 824 and Union of India and others v. Jaipal Singh, : 2004 (1) SCT 108.