SUCHA SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Fir No.7 dated 16.1.2003, under Sections 7 and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 was registered against the petitioner at Police Station Vigilance Bureau, Patiala while he was serving as Head Constable in the Punjab Police. Petitioner was convicted, vide judgment dated 24.1.2005 passed by Special Judge, Patiala for offences under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) and 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The petitioner preferred Criminal Appeal No.249 of 2005 before this Court. Vide judgment dated 16.2.2010, the Appeal was allowed and the judgment of conviction against the petitioner was set aside. However, during the pendency of the afore-noticed Criminal Appeal, the petitioner was dismissed from service vide order dated 26.12.2007 passed by the Punishing Authority i.e. the Senior Superintendent of Police, Patiala. Upon having earned acquittal from this Court, the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Patiala Range, Patiala has passed the order dated 10.9.2010 at Annexure P4 directing the re-instatement of the petitioner with immediate effect but has held the period of absence from the date of dismissal i.e. 26.12.2007 till the date of re-instatement to be treated as 'No work No pay'. As a sequel to such order, the Senior Superintendent of Police has passed the order dated 8.12.2010 at Annexure P5 re-iterating such view i.e. upon reinstatement, the period from 26.12.2007 to 14.9.2010 has been ordered to be treated as non-duty period (No work No pay).

(2.) The instant writ petition has been filed impugning the orders dated 10.9.2010, Annexure P4 and dated 8.11.2010 at Annexure P5, only to the extent that the petitioner has been denied the arrears of pay for the period 26.12.2007 to 14.9.2010 i.e. from the date of dismissal to the date of re-instatement.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has strenuously argued that the petitioner was implicated in a totally false case by the Vigilance Department and it was on account of his conviction that the petitioner had been dismissed from service. Learned counsel argues that the order of conviction having been set aside by this Court and the petitioner having been re-instated, there would be no justifiable basis to deny to him the full pay and allowances for the entire period i.e. from the date of dismissal from service till the date of his re-instatement. Towards such gain, reliance has been placed upon Rule 7.3 of the Punjab Civil Services Rules, Vol.I, Part I, Chapter VII.