Civil Writ Petition No. 12746 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No. 12746 of 2010 Date of decision : 14.10.2011 Surjit Singh ....Petitioner V/s State of Punjab and others ....Respondents BEFORE : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA Present: Mr. Ankur Soni, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. K.S. Dadwal, Addl. A.G., Punjab. RAJAN GUPTA J. (ORAL) The petitioner has sought a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing of order dated 02.05.2005, Annexure P-2 and subsequent order dated 03.05.2010 whereby service period of petitioner from 13.10.2003 to 30.06.2004 has been treated as leave of kind due. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that a case was registered against the petitioner under section 304-B IPC as his daughter-in- law died within 07 years of marriage. According to him, he was tried in the case but acquitted. He is thus entitled to complete salary for the period during which he was in incarceration (i.e. 13.10.2003 to 30.06.2004). Learned State counsel has, however, opposed the prayer. He submits that petitioner was taken in custody after registration of case and from 13.10.2003 to 30.06.2004 he was incarcerated. According to him, petitioner is not entitled to salary for the said period as the petitioner was under suspension during that period and did not discharge any duty being in Civil Writ Petition No. 12746 of 2010 2 custody. He has placed reliance on judgment of the Apex court reported as Ranchhodji Chaturji Thakore Vs. The Superintendent Engineer, Gujarat Electricity Board, Himmatnagar (Gujrat) and anr. 1997(1) SLR, 14. This apart, he submits that claim of the petitioner was rejected way back in the year 2005 but no challenge was posed to the order passed. Merely because his representation was decided vide order, Annexure P-1 dated 03.05.2010 reiterating the earlier order an effort is made to condone the laches. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. An FIR was registered against the petitioner and his family members due to death of daughter-in-law of petitioner within 07 years of marriage and trial ensued. Petitioner was taken in custody and remained incarcerated for the period 13.10.2003 to 30.06.2004. During this period, he was under suspension. He was, however, later acquitted. Vide order Annexure P-2, it was directed that for the period petitioner remained in custody his suspension period be treated as leave of the kind due. The said order was passed on 02.05.2005. The petitioner chose not to challenge the said order. He, however, filed a representation which was rejected on 16.01.2009 observing that order dated 02.05.2005 was correctly passed. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to show how the petitioner is entitled for salary for the period he remained incarcerated pursuant to FIR registered against him. In judgment delivered in Ranchhodji Chaturji case supra, the Apex court held as under:- “The reinstatement of the petitioner into the service has already been ordered by the High Court. The only question is: whether he is entitled to back wages? It was his conduct of involving himself in the crime that was taken into account for his not being in service of the respondent. Consequent upon his acquittal, he is entitled to reinstatement Civil Writ Petition No. 12746 of 2010 3 for the reasons that his service was terminated on the basis of the conviction by operation of proviso to the statutory rules applicable to the situation. The question of back wages would be considered only if the respondents have taken action by way of disciplinary proceedings and the action was found to be unsustainable in law and he was unlawfully prevented from discharging the duties. In that context, his conduct becomes relevant. Each case requires to be considered in his own backdrops. In this case, since the petitioner had involved himself in a crime though he was later acquitted, he had disabled himself from rendering the service on account of conviction and incarceration in jail. Under these circumstances, the petitioner is not entitled to payment of back wages. The learned single Judge and the Division Bench have not committed any error of law warranting interference. ” In the facts and circumstances of case and the judgment aforesaid, I am of the considered view that there is no merit in the petition. The same is hereby dismissed. October 14, 2011 (RAJAN GUPTA) Ajay JUDGE