Regular Second Appeal No.2085 of 1987 : 1 : IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: April 22, 2010 The State of Punjab & others ...Appellants VERSUS Shri Chanan Singh ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 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: Ms.Ambika Luthra, AAG, Punjab, for the appellants. Mr.R.K.Joshi, Advocate, for the respondent. ***** RANJIT SINGH, J. Shri Charan Singh while serving as J.B.T.Teacher at Government High School, Baghpur Sataur, Tehsil and District Hoshiarpur was prosecuted for a criminal case for offences under Sections 420, 468 and 471 IPC. Because of this reason, he was placed under suspension w.e.f. 19.3.1975. The trial before the Regular Second Appeal No.2085 of 1987 : 2 : criminal Court followed leading to his conviction on 20.1.1976. However, he was not sentenced and released on probation under the provisions of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act. The suspension of the respondent-plaintiff was accordingly revoked on 20.1.1976 and he was reinstated into service. He, however, was not allowed pay and allowances for the period he had remained under suspension and rather was served with an order dated 19.7.1978 of District Education Officer awarding him punishment of censure. Subsequently, he was served a letter dated 15.10.1982 informing that he would not be paid anything for the period he had remained under suspension. The respondent-plaintiff accordingly filed a suit seeking declaration challenging the order dated 19.3.1975 placing him under suspension and order dated 19.7.1978 awarding him punishment of censure and so also the order disallowing pay and allowances for the period he had remained under suspension. The appellants contested the suit. There was not much dispute raised in regard to the factual position. However, the appellants had justified the impugned orders saying that they were perfectly legal and valid. Plea of limitation was also raised and so also that the suit was not maintainable for want of notice under Section 80 CPC. Accordingly, the appellants prayed that the suit be dismissed. On the basis of pleadings, following issues were framed:- “1. Whether the orders dated 19.3.75, 19.7.78 and 15.10.82 are illegal, ultravires, unconstitutional and irrational in the face of judgment dated 20.1.76 by Addl.Chief Judl.Magistrate, Hoshiarpur? OPP Regular Second Appeal No.2085 of 1987 : 3 : 2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to full payment of suspension period and other dues keeping in view the judgment dated 20.1.76 by the Addl.Chief Judl. Magistrate, Hoshiarpur? OPP 3. Whether the suit is within time? OPP 4. Whether the notice u/s 80 of the CPC has been served on the deft. Legally? OPP 5. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form? OPD 6. Relief. The Trial Court decided issues No.1 and 2 in favour of the respondent-plaintiff. Issues No.3 to 5 were not pressed by the Government Pleader. Accordingly, the suit filed by the respondent- plaintiff was decreed. Aggrieved against the same, the appellants filed an appeal before the first Appellate Court. The said appeal was also dismissed. What has weighed with the Court is that for taking action against an employee on the basis of his conviction by a criminal Court, the procedure prescribed in Rules 8 to 12 of Punjab Civil Services Rules, Vol.I, was required to be followed. The first Appellate Court, in my view, has rightly appreciated the legal as well as factual position. No doubt, the Government servant, who is convicted and is released on probation can be proceeded against on the basis of a conviction, but to punish him on that ground, procedure under the rules cannot be circumvented or dispensed with in any manner. It was found, as a matter of fact, that no such procedure was followed while awarding punishment of censure to the respondent-plaintiff or Regular Second Appeal No.2085 of 1987 : 4 : while disallowing pay and allowances to him for the period he had remained under suspension. The rule position is clear in this regard that even for disallowing the pay and allowances for the period of suspension, the authorities are under obligation to issue a show cause notice and then pass an appropriate order as would emerge from Rule 7.3-B (3) of the Punjab Civil Services Rules, Vol.1, Part 1, Chapter VII. Concededly, no opportunity was afforded to the respondent-plaintiff while directing that respondent-plaintiff would not be entitled to any pay and allowances for the period he had remained under suspension. The courts below have rightly appreciated the factual and legal position. A substantial question of law in violation of the rules and of principle of natural justice, thus, would arise in this case, which has rightly been considered and decided. There is no merit in the appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed. April 22, 2010 ( RANJIT SINGH ) ramesh JUDGE