MAI CHAND Vs. UTTRI HARYANA BIJLI NIGAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant petition is directed against order dated 10.11.2005 (P-7) passed by the Superintending Engineer (Operation) Circile, Ambala, according sanction in respect of 3210 days earned leave with/without substitute w.e.f. 28.11.1980 to 11.9.1989 with permission to prefix and suffix on any subsequent date to the petitioner. The petitioner is a retired employee of the Uttri Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam-respondent No. 1. When he was working on the post of Meter Reader, a complaint was made to the police for registration of a case against him. He was placed under suspension on 28.11.1980. On the basis of the complaint, an F.I.R. No. 78, dated 2.4.1981, was registered under Sections 406/409/420 IPC at Police Station Mulana, District Ambala, with the allegation that he failed to deposit a sum of Rs. 23,002.50 paise on account of collection from the consumers against their electricity bills with the office. The trial commenced and concluded in the acquittal of the petitioner, as is evident from the perusal of order dated 16.4.2002 (P-2). The learned Magistrate has acquitted the petitioner on the ground that the prosecution had failed to prove the allegation beyond reasonable degree of doubt. On account of absence of sufficient incriminating evidence against the accused, he was acquitted. It is appropriate to mention that in the -meanwhile the petitioner has retired on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.7.2007 from the post of UDC. It is apposite to mention that the petitioner was reinstated in service on 12.9.1989.The question then arose as to how the period of suspension from 28.11.1980 to 11.9.1989 be treated.

(2.) We have heard learned Counsel for the parties, perused the paper book with their able assistance and are of the considered view that the instant petition deserves to be allowed and the impugned order is liable to be quashed. It is conceded position that Rule 7.3. of the Punjab Civil Services Rules, Volume I (as applicable to Haryana)(for brevity, the Rules ) governs the determination of allowances paid to a suspended employee when he is reinstated in service. Rule 7.3 of the Rules reads as under:

(3.) A perusal of Rule 7.3(1)(2) & (4) of the Rules shows that where the authority concerned comes to the conclusion that the employee has been fully exonerated or in case of suspension that the suspension was wholly unjustified then he has to be given full pay and allowances to which he would have been entitled had he not been dismissed, removed and compulsorily retired or suspended. It is further evident from the perusal of Sub-rule (4) of Rule 7.3 of the Rules that the period of absence from duty is to be treated as period spent on duty for all intents and purposes. It is further appropriate to make a mention to Rule 7.5 of the Rules, which specifically deals with criminal prosecution, which has led to acquittal and the same reads thus: