HARBHAJAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner joined services at Government Senior Secondary School, Udhowal, Jalandhar, and was placed under suspension on account of FIR No. 136 under Sections 302, 376, 109/34 Penal Code registered at Police Station Phillaur, Jalandhar. He was arrested on 7.7.2006 and on this account was placed under suspension, vide order dated 11.7.2016. The petitioner was convicted by the Sessions Judge, Jalandhar, which became the basis of his services being terminated by order dated 28.11.2008. Against the judgment of conviction, the petitioner filed an appeal before this Court vide Criminal Appeal-D-56-DB of 2009 and was finally acquitted of the charges levelled against him, vide judgment dated 27.5.2013. On acquittal, the petitioner was allowed to rejoin service. However, no order was passed on the salary/allowances payable to the petitioner during the period he was under suspension and out of service. The petitioner represented to the Department concerned and vide impugned letter dated 5.3.2015, the District Education Officer, Jalandhar, rejected the claim of the petitioner for considering the suspension period as period spent on duty and also declined to make any payment for the period, the petitioner remained under dismissal by treating it as non duty period. Aggrieved the instant writ petition has been filed.

(2.) Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner contends that the petitioner would be entitled to the benefit of full pay and allowances for the period he had been placed under suspension as also for the period of dismissal. He would further submit that the petitioner had been implicated in a false case and it was on account of his arrest and conviction that he had been suspended from service and subsequently dismissed. It is also contended that once order of conviction has been set aside and the petitioner reinstated, he would be entitled to full pay and allowances, as per Rules 7.3 and 7.5 of the Punjab Civil Services Rules, Volume I. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies on the judgment rendered in Hukam Singh Vs. The State of Haryana and another 2001 (1) RSJ 201 to contend that the Division Bench of this Court has held that when a person is acquitted of the criminal charge, he would be entitled to full salary and allowances between the period of suspension, dismissal and reinstatement as well as on a judgment rendered in Narinder Kumar Vs. Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. and others 2016 (3) SCT 738 (P and H), to contend that once the petitioner has been exonerated, he would be entitled to all the benefits under Rule 7.3 of the Punjab Civil Services Rules.

(3.) Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents-State submits that the petitioner had been reinstated upon his order of conviction being set aside but he would not be entitled to any payment on account of the fact that no services were rendered by him during the period he remained under dismissal from service. The principle of 'no work no pay' would be applicable in the instant case. It is also argued that it was on account of a private complaint that had been filed against the petitioner that process of criminal law had been set in motion and not on account of any fault on the part of the respondents or action initiated by the respondent department itself.