HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** CWP No.16547 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision: 06.09.2011 **** Dr. Pankaj Bansal . . . . Petitioner VS. State of Punjab & Anr. . . . . Respondents **** CORAM : HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT **** 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? **** Present: Mr. BS Bhalla, Advocate for the petitioner **** SURYA KANT, J. (ORAL) (1). Notice of motion. Ms. Sudeepti Sharma, learned DAG Punjab accepts notice on behalf of the respondents. Having regard to the nature of order which I propose to pass, there is no necessity to call upon the respondents to file their reply(ies)/affidavit(s), at this stage. (2). The petitioner is an Ayurvedic Medical Officer. He was caught red-handed while taking bribe on 21.02.2003 which led to registration of FIR No.16 dated 21.02.2003 under Sections 7,13(2) of the Prevention of the Corruption Act at Police Station Vigilance Bureau, Ferozepur. The petitioner was placed under suspension and he also remained in custody from 19.06.2003 to 21.07.2003. The petitioner was re- instated on 04.11.2009 after his acquittal and he CWP No.16547 of 2011.doc - 2 – resumed duties on 25.12.2009. His claim for payment of full salary for the period he remained under suspension from 21.02.2003 to 25.12.2009 has been turned down by the Competent Authority by passing a self-speaking order under challenge, the operative part whereof reads as follows:- “As per Rule 7.3 of personal department of the rules, Part I dated 2.12.1988 and 8.8.1977 in case any employee is acquitted than his suspension period can be treated as a duty period but the cases in which the employees are acquitted by giving them benefit of doubt, in those cases it is to be considered as to whether his suspension was justified or not. In this case the official was arrested by the vigilance department while accepting the illegal gratification. The Hon’ble Court had acquitted the official by providing him benefit of doubt as the case was not properly pursued by the prosecution department. In this regard, as per the circular No.6613-G1- 50A/20259 dated 7.7.1958 issued by the Punjab Govt. Personal Department the employees are not entitled for full pay where they have been acquitted on the basis of doubt.” CWP No.16547 of 2011.doc - 3 – (Emphasis applied) (3). The judgement acquitting him in the corruption case reveals that the petitioner won over the complainant and the shadow witness though the other witnesses came forward and deposed against him. The Special Judge gave the benefit of doubt and acquitted the petitioner for the obvious reason that the standards of proof required in a criminal case to hold the suspect guilty of an offence are at a very high pedestal as compared to a domestic enquiry. Suffice it to mention that the charges against the petitioner could not be proved beyond reasonable doubt. (4). The competent authority was therefore fully justified in concluding that the suspension of a public servant facing trial in a corruption case, was fully justified in law as such an employee cannot be allowed to perform public duties. Wherever the suspect employee earns acquittal ‘on merits’ with a categoric finding of his false implication, his claim for payment of full salary for the period of suspension by treating it as duty period would be justified but not in a case where acquittal is on `benefit of doubt’. Such a recourse is permissible under Rule 7.3 of the Civil Service Rules Vol-I Part-I which reads as follows: - CWP No.16547 of 2011.doc - 4 – “7.3(1) When a Government employee, who has been dismissed, removed, compulsorily retired or suspended, is reinstated, or would have been reinstated but for his retirement on superannuation the authority competent to order the reinstatement shall consider and make a specific order:- (a) regarding the pay and allowance to be paid to the Government employee for the period of his absence from duty, occasioned by suspension and/or dismissal, removal or compulsory retirement ending with his reinstatement on or the date of his retirement on superannuation as the case may be, and (b) Whether or not the said period be treated as a period spent on duty. (2) Whether the authority mentioned in sub-rule (1) is of opinion that the Government employee has been fully exonerated or, in the case of suspension, that is wholly unjustified, the Government employee shall be given the full pay and allowances to which he would have been entitled, had he not been dismissed, removed, compulsorily retired or suspended, as the case may be.” CWP No.16547 of 2011.doc - 5 – (5). Hence no fault can be found with the impugned order. (6). Dismissed. (7). Notwithstanding the settled legal position, it has been seen that some Departments/Disciplinary Authorities mechanically reinstate the public servants merely on their acquittal by the Courts in corruption cases and also grant all the ‘consequential benefits’. Suffice it to observe that the Competent Authority is obligated to consider the facts and circumstances of each case to find out as to whether the acquittal is an outcome of the benefit of doubt as in that case the consequential service benefits cannot be claimed as a matter of right. The Competent Authority in a given situation can also consider the desirability of initiating disciplinary action subject to its permissibility. (8). Let a copy of this order be sent to Ms. Sudeepti Sharma, learned DAG Punjab for information and necessary compliance. (9). Ordered accordingly. Dasti. 06.09.2011 vishal shonkar (S u r y a K a n t) Judge