CWP No.2691 of 1987 ( 1 ) In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh. Date of decision: 22.09.2008 Niranjan Singh ... Petitioner Versus Divisional Manager, Transport Department, Punjab, Chandigarh and another ... Respondent CORAM HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI Present: Ms.Meenakshi Verma and Mr.Sukhdeep Singh Brar, Advocates, for the petitioner. Mr.S.S. Sahu, A.A.G., Punjab, for the respondents. PERMOD KOHLI, J. (Oral): I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the record of the case. While serving as a Driver with the respondents, a criminal case was registered against the petitioner vide First Information No.405 dated 24.10.1982 for causing accident . His services were terminated by the General Manager, Punjab Roadways, Chandigarh, vide order dated 29.10.1982. In an appeal filed by the petitioner, the order of termination was set aside and he was reinstated in service pending decision of the criminal case vide order dated 28.11.1983. Subsequently, the petitioner was acquitted of the charge by Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Jagraon, vide CWP No.2691 of 1987 ( 2 ) judgment dated 30.09.1985. Vide order dated 27.02.1986 (Annexure P-3), the respondents treated the period from 29.01.1982 to 29.01.1982 for one day as leave with pay, whereas period from 30.01.1982 to 10.01.1984 for 711 days was treated as leave without pay. The appeal preferred by the petitioner also came to be rejected vide order dated 23.09.1986 (Annexure P-6). These are the orders impugned in this petition. No reply has been filed by the respondents. The short issue involved in the present writ petition is whether the petitioner can be denied the emoluments for the period he remained out of the job on account of the order of termination passed by the respondents. Rule 7.5 of the Punjab Civil Services Rules (Vol.1) deals with the situation regarding the period a government employee against whom criminal proceedings have been taken, reads as under:- “7.5 An employee of Government 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 is undergoing imprisonment, and not allowed to draw any pay and allowances (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 CWP No.2691 of 1987 ( 3 ) 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 its 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.” In the present case, on registration of a criminal case against the petitioner, his services were terminated even without conclusion of the trial. An appeal preferred by the petitioner was accepted and he was ordered to be reinstated in service pending criminal proceedings against him. Finally, the petitioner was acquitted of the charge by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class. Copy of the judgment of the trial Court dated 13.09.1985 (Annexure P-2) is on record. The authorities without considering the acquittal and the fact that the petitioner's services were terminated even on registration of the First Information Report, treating the period with effect from 30.01.1982 to 10.01.1984 for 711 days as leave without pay. Since the petitioner was acquitted of the charge, his termination was totally unjustified and he has been reinstated. There is no justification for with-holding his salary and treating the period as leave without pay. Rule 7.5 of the Rules aforesaid CWP No.2691 of 1987 ( 4 ) covers such a situation. The issue is further fortified by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Shashi Kumar Vs/. Uttri Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam and another, 2005 (1) RSJ, 718, wherein under the similar circumstances the employee has been granted the backwages. In view of the above, present petition is allowed, orders dated 27.02.1986 (Annexure P-3) passed by the General Manager, Punjab Roadways, Chandigarh-1 and 23.09.1986 (Annexure P-5) passed by the Divisional Manager, Transport Department, Punjab, Chandigarh Division, Chandigarh, are hereby set aside to the extent the period with effect from 30.01.1982 to 10.01.1984 for 711 days, is treated as leave without pay. The petitioner is held entitled to full back-wages for the period in question. Let the entire payment be made to the petitioner within a period of four months from today, failing which the petitioner shall be entitled to interest at the rate of 4 per cent per annum till the amount is actually paid. If the petitioner has already retired from service, his retiral benefits shall be re- fixed accordingly. No costs. 22.09.2008. (PERMOD KOHLI) BLS JUDGE Note: Whether to be referred to the Reporter? NO