IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No. 8879 of 2010 Date of decision: 04.08.2011 E/ASI Ram Kumar ...Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH Present: Mr. P.K. Rohilla, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Harish Rathee, Sr. DAG, Haryana for the State. RANJIT SINGH J. The grievance of the petitioner in the present writ petition is that despite acquittal from criminal charge and exoneration in the disciplinary proceedings his period for suspension is not being counted as duty period. The petitioner was appointed as Constable on 01.09.1974. He was promoted as Head Constable on 13.07.1999 and to the rank of ASI on 14.10.2004. On 21.07.2008, the petitioner was placed under suspension on account of being placed under arrest in FIR dated 21.07.2008 registered under Sections 61/1/14 of Excise Act and 120-B IPC and 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act. The petitioner was placed under suspension w.e.f. 23.07.2008. The departmental inquiry was conducted from 17.02.2009 onwards but soon thereafter, the petitioner was compulsorily retired on 28.02.2009 due to arrest in criminal case. On 10.03.2009, the Civil Writ Petition No. 8879 of 2010 -2- impugned order is passed after expressing disagreement with the finding returned by the inquiry officer. It is further directed that the suspension period be not treated as duty period. The petitioner has filed an appeal against this order. In the meantime, the petitioner was also acquitted of the criminal charge and so he has filed this writ petition to impugn the order. The respondents have filed reply but appears to have been at tangent in responding the pleas raised in the writ petition. The main stress in the reply is that the petitioner is retired compulsorily on completion of 55 years of age without realizing that there is no challenge made to the order of compulsory retirement in the writ petition. Limited prayer made in the writ petition is for quashing the order whereby suspension period of the petitioner is not being treated as duty period. In support, the counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on Balraj Goyal versus Haryana Financial Corporation 2010 (4) RSJ 263. The Court has observed denial of salary for suspension period due to criminal case upon acquitted and exoneration of the charges in the departmental proceedings for which the person is placed under suspension cannot be attributed wholly to the petitioner and claim for pay for suspension period is justified. There is some substance in the plea raised by the respondents that the retirement of the petitioner had disabled them to pass appropriate order. Still denying the benefit of the period for which the petitioner remained under suspension in the background that he is acquitted of the criminal charge and is exonerated in the Civil Writ Petition No. 8879 of 2010 -3- departmental proceedings has to be considered in the light of law laid down by this Court and legal position as contained in Rules 7.3 and 7.5 of the Punjab Civil Services Rules Vol. I Part I. Pension Rules applicable to the service. The impugned order cannot be sustainable and is set aside. The case is remitted back to the respondents to reconsider the entire issue in the light of observations made above. The respondents would follow the principle of natural justice and issue notice to the petitioner and thereafter pass any appropriate order in accordance with law. August 04, 2011 (RANJIT SINGH) rts JUDGE