IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No. 133 of 2010 Date of decision : 11.08.2011 Balraj Arya ...Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH Present: Mr. Amar Vivek, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Harish Rathee, Sr. DAG, Haryana for the State. **** RANJIT SINGH J. The petitioner seeks setting aside of order dated 21.08.2002, whereby the prayer of the petitioner for treating the period for which he had remained under suspension as spent on duty has been rejected. The reason disclosed in the order declining the request is that the petitioner had not informed about his arrest to the Principal and had kept this information hidden. The petitioner has also impugned the order rejecting his appeal filed against the order of rejection on the ground of delay. Counsel for the petitioner has made submissions on the merits of the controversy that there was no attempt on the part of the petitioner to hide any information about his arrest. As per the counsel, there was no delay on the part of the petitioner to file appeal or for making approach against the impugned order. The petitioner, who was working as Sanskrit teacher, was named in FIR registered on 02.03.2001 under Sections 302, 498-A and 34 IPC. He was placed under suspension on 30.04.2001 w.e.f. 04.03.2011 when he was found absent. The petitioner has averred that he had to leave suddenly on 02.03.2001 when he received a message from his house and was then taken in custody. A communication was received from school about his absence by his wife on 19.03.2001 and his wife had informed the school about FIR on 23.04.2001 and he was placed under suspension as already noticed. On being released on bail, the petitioner reported and submitted his explanation to the show cause notice, which had been served to him. On 18.01.2002, the petitioner was acquitted of the criminal charge. No appeal was filed against the acquittal order. In this background, the petitioner prayed for regularizing his period of suspension, which was rejected through the impugned order. Appropriately request of the petitioner was required to be considered in terms of legal provision contained in Rules 7.3 and 7.5 of Punjab Civil Service Rules Vol. 1 Part 1 (for short 'Rules'). Rule 7.5 of the rules governs the situation when an employee is acquitted of criminal charge. Whether the respondents could ignore the aspect of acquittal of the petitioner to be a valid ground to regularize the period of his suspension from duty to count as duty on the ground that the petitioner had failed to give this information of his arrest or had suppressed this information would appear doubtful. Rule 7.5 of the rules is as under:- 7.5 An employee of Govt. against whom proceedings have been taken either for his arrest for debt or on a criminal charge or who is detained under any law providing for preventive detention should be considered as under suspension for any periods during which he is detained in custody or in undergoing suspension for any periods during which he is detained in custody or in undergoing imprisonment, and not allowed to draw any pay and allowance (other than any subsistence allowance that may be granted in accordance with the principles laid down in rule 7.2) for such periods until the final termination of the proceedings taken against him or until he is released from detention and allowed to rejoin duty, as the case may be. An adjustment of his allowances for such periods should thereafter be made according to the circumstances of the case, the full amount being given only in the event of the officer being acquitted of blame or (if the proceedings taken against him were for his arrest for debt), of it being proved that the officer's liability arose from circumstances beyond his control or the detention being held by the competent authority to be unjustified. This issue would have to be examined in the light of the rules and the respondents may consider if this prayer could be declined only on the ground that the petitioner has failed to inform them about FIR. The respondents may hear the petitioner and consider the request in the terms of the rules. The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of with the above direction. August 11, 2011 (RANJIT SINGH) rts JUDGE