Civil Writ Petition No.18031 of 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.18031 of 2010 DATE OF DECISION :- JULY 29, 2011 Jai Pal Singh .....Petitioner VERSUS State of Haryana & others ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH PRESENT: Mr. S.P. Chahar, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Harish Rathee, Sr. DAG, Haryana for the State. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. The petitioner was appointed as Drawing Teacher with the respondent department on ad hoc basis on 14.3.1987 and later regularized. On 16.05.2001, FIR was registered against him under Sections 420/ 467/ 468/ 471/ 120-B IPC by Police Station City Jind. The petitioner was arrested on 10.10.2001 and so was placed under suspension on 8.11.2001 w.e.f. 10.10.2001 which was the date of his arrest. The petitioner was reinstated on 26.7.2002, but with the condition that it will not cause any effect on the pendency of the criminal case in the Court and the departmental disciplinary proceedings. On 15.10.2009, the petitioner was acquitted by the trial Court of the offence as alleged. No departmental proceedings were ever initiated against the petitioner. After his acquittal, the petitioner served a legal Civil Writ Petition No.18031 of 2010 -2- notice for treating the period of suspension as period spent on duty for all purposes along with all the consequential benefits. When no action was taken, the petitioner had filed CWP No.1968 of 2010, which was disposed of on 5.2.2010 with direction to the respondents to take action on the legal notice. Now the respondents have passed an order treating the period of suspension as duty for the purpose of pension and other service benefits like ACP and promotions etc. According to the petitioner, the respondents have erred in not treating the suspension period as duty period for the purpose of pay also on the erroneous ground that the petitioner has not been acquitted honorably and that he is acquitted by giving him benefit of doubt. Counsel, accordingly, pleads that since the petitioner was suspended only on account of pendency of a criminal case, his acquittal would entitle him to claim all the benefits including that of pay and allowances. The respondents have filed reply. It is pointed out that a complaint was received against the petitioner on 13.6.2001 about the registration of a criminal case. Allegation against the petitioner was for selling a fabricated certificates & degrees of matriculation and others. It is stated that the offence alleged was such which was involving moral turpitude and so the petitioner was placed under suspension. He was reinstated on 26.7.2002 and thereafter, prosecuted and has been acquitted by giving him benefit of doubt on 15.10.2009. It is, accordingly, stated that the competent authority has taken a decision to treat this period of suspension as duty period. Respondents maintain that the the competent authority Civil Writ Petition No.18031 of 2010 -3- has the discretion to decide as to how the suspension period of the petitioner is to be treated depending upon the conduct of the petitioner, which was not satisfactory. So the decision not allowing the pay w.e.f. the suspension from 10.10.2001 to 26.7.2002 is justified. I have heard counsel for the parties. Clearly, the petitioner was involved in a criminal case, in which the department has no concern. No doubt, the petitioner has been acquitted and his honour is vindicated, but still the department cannot be burdened with liability in those cases where an employee is himself responsible for involvement with which the department has no concern. The petitioner himself was responsible for the consequences. It was own conduct of the petitioner which landed him in this situation. In such circumstances, requiring the respondent-department to disburse all the pay for the entire suspension period may not sound fair. In this regard reference can be made to a decision of this Court in Ramesh Kumar Versus State of Haryana & others (CWP No.19079 of 2009), decided on 30.6.2010. In this case, the Court after relying on a decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ranchhodji Chaturji Thakore Vs. The Superintendent Engineer, Gujarat Electricity Board,, 1997 (1) SLR 14, has expressed this view. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in this case has observed as under:- “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 for the Civil Writ Petition No.18031 of 2010 -4- reason 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.” The petitioner has been allowed the pension and other service benefits like ACP and promotions etc. The order does not call for any interference. The writ petition is, accordingly dismissed. July 29, 2011 (RANJIT SINGH) monika JUDGE