C.W.P.No.11786 of 1989 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P.No.11786 of 1989 Date of Decision : 04.12.2009 Karam Singh ...Petitioner Versus The State of Haryana and another ...Respondents CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA Present: Mr. R.K.Malik, Sr. Advocate, with Mr. Vishal Malik, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Gagandeep Singh Wasu, Sr. DAG, Haryana. HEMANT GUPTA, J. (ORAL) The petitioner has invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court for quashing the order dated 14.2.1989, whereby the claim of the petitioner for grant of full pay and allowances for the suspension period was declined. The petitioner was suspended vide order dated 18.5.1973 (Annexure P-1), due to his involvement in a criminal case for an offence under Section 409 IPC, in pursuance of FIR No.45 dated 26.4.1973. The said criminal case ended up in acquittal of the petitioner vide judgment dated 19.3.1982. On 13.5.1982, the petitioner was reinstated. However, the full pay and allowances for the suspension period was not granted to him. On 20.9.1985, the petitioner was charge-sheeted for mis-conduct. On the basis of an enquiry in pursuance of such charge-sheet, an order of punishment of dismissal from service has been passed on 14.7.1987. The petitioner challenged the order of dismissal and also the non-payment of full pay and allowances in CWP No.3651 of 1988. The C.W.P.No.11786 of 1989 2 said writ petition was dismissed on 11.5.1988, but a direction was issued to examine the claim of the petitioner for pay and allowances prior to the date of his reinstatement in the year 1982. It was in pursuance of such direction, the order impugned has been passed declining full pay and allowances for the period of suspension. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the petitioner was suspended in terms of Rule 7.5 of the Punjab Civil Services Rules (for short 'the Rules'), as applicable to Haryana. Since, the criminal proceedings have ended in acquittal of the petitioner, therefore, the petitioner is entitled to full pay and allowances. It is argued that on the date of reinstatement, there was no disciplinary proceedings pending against the petitioner, therefore, the petitioner cannot be denied the benefit of full pay and allowances in terms of Rule 7.3 of the Rules, as such Rules deal with suspension during the pendency of disciplinary proceedings alone. Reliance is placed upon a Division Bench judgment of this Court in Shashi Kumar Vs. Uttri Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam and another 2005(1) RSJ 718. It is also argued that the petitioner has not been paid suspension allowances in terms of Rule 7.2 of the Rules, as he has not been paid 75% of the pay and allowances beyond the period of six months. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled to the suspension allowances payable in terms of Rule 7.2 of the Rules. Having heard learned counsel for the parties at some length, I do not find any merit in the present petition. Rule 7.3 deals with allowances on reinstatement. It contemplates that when a Government employee, who has been dismissed, removed, compulsorily retired, or suspended, is reinstated, or would have been reinstated but for his C.W.P.No.11786 of 1989 3 retirement on superannuation, the authority competent to order the reinstatement shall consider and make a specific order regarding payment of pay and allowances for the suspension period. Sub-rule (2) contemplates that if the authority mention in sub-rule (1) is of the opinion that the Government employee has been fully exonerated or, in case of suspension, that it was wholly unjustified, the Government employee shall be given the full pay and allowances to which he would have been entitled, has he not been dismissed, removed, compulsorily reitred or suspended, as the case may be. The relevant clause reads as under : "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 allowances 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 shall be treated as a period spent on duty. (2) Where the authority mentioned in sub-rule (1) is of opinion that the Government employee has been fully exonerated or, in case of suspension, that it was wholly unjustified, the Government employee shall be given the full pay and allowances to which he would have been entitled, has he not been dismissed, removed, compulsorily retired or suspended, as the case may be." Rule 7.3 as reproduced above, deals with the situation where a Government employee is reinstated after he was dismissed, removed, C.W.P.No.11786 of 1989 4 compulsory retired or suspended. Rule 7.3 enjoins a competent authority to pass an order of reinstatement of an employee, who is dismissed, removed, compulsory retired or suspended in respect of pay and allowances 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. The said Rule does not contemplate that the suspension is pending disciplinary proceedings. It will also include suspension during pendency of criminal proceedings, which ends into acquittal of an accused and consequent reinstatement. Though the petitioner might have been acquitted in the criminal trial, but in disciplinary proceedings an order of punishment has been passed against him. Since, the order of punishment has been passed against him, the competent Authority in terms of Rule 7.3 could pass an order in respect of pay and allowances, if any, for the period of absence from duty. Rule 7.3 does not restrict the jurisdiction of the competent authority to pass an order in respect of pay and allowances of an employee, who is reinstated subsequent to acquittal in criminal trial. Rule 7.3 takes into its ambit reinstatement of an employee and his entitlement to pay and allowances for the period of suspension for any reason may be pending disciplinary proceedings or criminal trial. Once the order of punishment passed against the petitioner has attained finality, therefore, the competent Authority was justified in declining pay and allowances for the period of his suspension period. A dismissed employee cannot claim that he is entitled to pay and C.W.P.No.11786 of 1989 5 allowances for the period of his suspension. The public funds cannot be spent on a person, who has been found guilty of misconduct. The judgment referred to by the learned counsel for the petitioner deals with the situation where an employee was acquitted in criminal trial. He was dismissed from service on account of conduct which led to his conviction. Since, his conviction was set aside, the order of punishment based upon conviction was also set aside. In these circumstances, it was held that the employee shall be entitled to pay and allowances for the period of suspension. However, in the present case, the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner have been started after his acquittal. Such proceedings have led to an order of dismissal being passed against the petitioner. The order of dismissal has attained finality. Therefore, the acquittal of the petitioner in the criminal case does not entitle him to pay and allowances for the period of suspension, as the misconduct stands proved against the petitioner and an order of dismissal has been passed. In these circumstances, the petitioner is not entitled to pay and allowances for the period of his suspension pending criminal trial. Consequently, I do not find any merit in the writ petition. Accordingly, the same is dismissed. (HEMANT GUPTA) JUDGE 04.12.2009 Vimal