Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 533 (PNJ)

Piara Singh v. State of Punjab

2013-04-26

Augustine George Masih

body2013
JUDGMENT Mr. Augustine George Masih, J. (Oral):- Challenge in this petition is to the part of the order dated 5.7.2012 (Annexure P-9) vide which the petitioner has been held not entitled to any monetary benefit of the arrears for the period he remained out of service. 2. It is the contention of the counsel for the petitioner that initially on registration of a false FIR No.196 under Sections 364-A/365/323/120- B/148/149 IPC, Police Station, Tanda, District Hoshiarpur dated 8.9.2006, petitioner was dismissed from service vide order dated 1.10.2006 by invoking the provisions as contained in Article 311(2)(b) of the Constitution of India. The petitioner challenged this order by filing CWP No.112 of 2011 titled as “Piara Singh Vs. State of Punjab & others” which was decided by this Court vide order dated 20.1.2011 (Annexure P-4) directing the respondents to take a decision on the representation of the petitioner which he had preferred after his acquittal by the Additional Sessions Judge, Hoshiarpur vide order dated 22.1.2010 in the criminal case which was registered against him. The said representation of the petitioner was duly considered by the Senior Superintendent of Police, Ferozepur and vide order dated 24.5.2011, petitioner was reinstated in service and was held not entitled to any arrears of pay etc. and a regular departmental inquiry was also initiated against him. 3. In the departmental inquiry, petitioner was exonerated vide order dated 18.12.2011 (Annexure P-6). After his exoneration, petitioner submitted a representation to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Ferozepur for granting him the consequential benefits including pay and allowances. The said claim of the petitioner when was not decided, he approached this Court by filing CWP No.4566 of 2012 titled as “Piara Singh Vs. State of Punjab and others” which was disposed of by this Court vide order dated 13.3.2012 directing the Senior Superintendent of Police, Ferozepur to pass a fresh speaking order after considering the order dated 18.12.2011 (Annexure P-6) vide which he was exonerated in the departmental proceedings initiated against him. In compliance with this order, the Senior Superintendent of Police, Ferozepur has proceeded to pass an order dated 5.7.2012 (Annexure P-9) denying the petitioner the pay and allowances for the period he had been out of service, however, notional benefit of pay fixation has been granted to him. 4. In compliance with this order, the Senior Superintendent of Police, Ferozepur has proceeded to pass an order dated 5.7.2012 (Annexure P-9) denying the petitioner the pay and allowances for the period he had been out of service, however, notional benefit of pay fixation has been granted to him. 4. This, the counsel for the petitioner contends, is not sustainable in the light of the fact that nothing has been found against the petitioner in the departmental inquiry which was initiated against him. The principle of ‘No work, No Pay’ as has been invoked by the respondents, will not be applicable to the case of the petitioner as petitioner was always ready and willing to perform his duties but was forced to stay out of work because of the orders passed by the respondents. Reliance has also been placed by the counsel for the petitioner on Rule 7.3(2) of the Punjab Civil Services Rules Volume-I, Part-I to contend that he is entitled to grant of all consequential benefits. 5. On the other hand, counsel for the respondents contends that the petitioner is not entitled to the benefit of pay and allowances as he had not performed his duties. The claim has rightly been denied by the competent authority. 6. I have considered the submissions of the parties and with their assistance have gone through the records of the case. 7. The claim has rightly been denied by the competent authority. 6. I have considered the submissions of the parties and with their assistance have gone through the records of the case. 7. Rule 7.3(2) of the Punjab Civil Services Rules, Volume-I, Part-I reads as follows: “(2) Where the authority competent to order re-instatement is of opinion that the Government employee, who had been dismissed, removed or compulsorily retired, has been fully exonerated, the Government employee shall, subject to the provisions of sub-rule (6), be paid his full pay and allowances to which he would have been entitled, had he not been dismissed, removed or compulsorily retired or suspended, prior to such dismissal, removal or compulsory retirement, as the case may be: Provided that where such authority is of opinion that the termination of the proceedings instituted against the Government employee had been delayed due to reasons directly attributable to the Government employee it may, after giving him an opportunity to make representation and after considering the representation, if any, submitted by him, direct, for reasons to be recorded in writing, that the Government employee shall, subject to the provisions of sub-rule (7), be paid for the period of such delay only such amount (not being the whole) of pay and allowances, as it may determine. (3) In a case falling under sub-rule (2), the period of absence from duty including the period of suspension preceding dismissal, removal or compulsory retirement, as the case may be, shall be treated as a period spent on duty for all purposes.” 8. A perusal of the above rules clearly holds the petitioner entitled to the benefit of pay and allowances for the period he is claiming in the present writ petition as the petitioner has been acquitted in the criminal case and also has been found to be innocent in the departmental inquiry which was initiated against him. Claim of the petitioner is also supported by the judgment passed by this Court in CWP No.16192 of 2010 titled as Sukhchain Singh Vs. State of Punjab & another, decided on 18.3.2013, wherein in a similar matter this Court had proceeded to grant the consequential benefits including arrears for the period the petitioner had remained out of service. 9. In view of the above, the present writ petition is allowed. State of Punjab & another, decided on 18.3.2013, wherein in a similar matter this Court had proceeded to grant the consequential benefits including arrears for the period the petitioner had remained out of service. 9. In view of the above, the present writ petition is allowed. Petitioner is held entitled to pay and allowances for the period he had remained out of service. The arrears be calculated and released to the petitioner within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order. ---------0.B.S.0------------ ———————————