Delhi High Court: In a case wherein, a petition was filed to challenge the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (‘the Tribunal’), whereby the petitioner’s application for grant of back wages, seniority, promotion and other benefits was dismissed, the Division Bench of V. Kameswar Rao* and Anoop Kumar Mendiratta, JJ., directed the respondents to pay subsistence allowance along with interest of 8% per annum to the petitioner for the period he remained suspended i.e. from 18-11-1996 to 16-07-2012. The Court further stated that the petitioner should be entitled to seniority and consequential benefits including promotion at par with the last junior of his batch, and accordingly set aside the dismissal orders passed by the respondents to the extent that deny seniority and consequential benefits to the petitioner.
Background
In the instant case, the petitioner passed away on 02-02-2018, therefore his legal heirs were brought on record vide order dated 29-05-2018.
The FIR was registered against the petitioner, who was a constable in Delhi under Sections 379 and 420 of the Penal Code, 1860. Subsequently, the petitioner was arrested on 18-11-1996. Thereafter, with effect from 18-11-1996, the petitioner was suspended and later dismissed from the service under Article 311(2)(b) of the Constitution.
A regular departmental enquiry was initiated against the petitioner and vide order dated 04-06-2012, the petitioner was awarded punishment of forfeiture of five years approved service permanently. Even though it was decided that issue of the petitioner’s suspension would be decided after the criminal case against him was decided, still he was reinstated in service vide order dated 17-07-2012.
In the criminal proceedings against the petitioner, the Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi, vide order dated 30-05-2014, held the petitioner guilty and sentenced him to simple imprisonment for five months along with fine . Thus, as per Rule 11 of Delhi Police (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1980, vide order dated 14-08-2014 (‘dismissal order’), the petitioner was dismissed from service and the period of his suspension from 18-11-1996 to 16-07-2012 was treated as a period ‘not spent on duty’ for all intent and purposes. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a departmental appeal which was dismissed.
The petitioner also filed a criminal appeal against his conviction and sentence, which was allowed and he was acquitted from all the charges. In view of the final acquittal order, the respondents re-visited the dismissal order and the petitioner was reinstated in service on 26-11-2015 with notional benefits but without any arrears or back wages for the period of dismissal.
Analysis, Law, and Decision
The issues for consideration before this Court were:
1. Whether the petitioner was entitled to subsistence allowance for the period between 18-11-1996 to 16-07-2012?
The Court noted that though the petitioner was put under suspension he was not paid any subsistence allowance. The Court relied on M. Paul Anthony v. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd., (1999) 3 SCC 679 and opined that subsistence allowance was given to an employee to sustain himself and his family during the period of suspension. Subsistence allowance was a statutory right of an employee and any denial of such allowance would amount to violation of Article 21 of the Constitution.
The Court opined that if the subsistence allowed was not paid to the petitioner, he should be entitled to the same along with the interest for the period for which he was denied the same.
2. Whether the petitioner was entitled to receive back wages for the said period between 18-11-1996 to 16-07-2012?
The Court relied on Ranchhodji Chaturji Thakore v. Gujarat Electricity Board, Himmatnagar (Gujarat), (1996) 11 SCC 603 and Union of India v. Jaipal Singh, (2004) 1 SCC 121, opined that it was clear that when an employee gets involved in a crime, which disables himself from rendering his services because of conviction or incarceration, even if he was acquitted subsequently on appeal and reinstated in service, he could not claim back wages for the period when he was not in service.
3. Whether the petitioner was entitled to seniority or promotion in line with his batch-mates and consequential benefits thereof?
As per respondents, the petitioner’s suspension period was treated as period ‘not spent on duty’ for all intents and purposes, thus the petitioner could not be granted seniority and consequential benefits. The Court opined that such stand of the respondents if accepted, would have serious consequences, as the period between 18-11-1996 to 16-07-2012, would be written off in the petitioner’s career, significantly impeding his career advancement. The Court opined that a necessary corollary of such reinstatement in service should be that the period treated as ‘not spent on duty’ would be counted for the purpose of seniority and for all consequential benefits. The period treated as ‘not spent on duty’ must be construed for the purposes of back wages only and not for the purposes of seniority and promotion, etc.
Thus, the Court opined that the period between 18-11-1996 to 16-07-2012, could not be treated as period ‘not spent on duty’ for all intents and purposes. The period should be counted for assessing and granting seniority and consequential benefits including promotion to the petitioner. However, he would not be entitled to any pay or allowances except subsistence allowance.
Thus, the Court directed the respondents to pay subsistence allowance along with interest of 8% per annum to the petitioner for the period between 18-11-1996 to 16-07-2012. The Court further stated that the petitioner should be entitled to seniority and consequential benefits including promotion at par with the last junior of his batch and if found fit, the consequential benefits should be released to the legal representatives of the petitioner. The Court directed such directions should be implemented within six months from 25-09-2023.
Accordingly, the Court disposed of the petition and set aside the dismissal orders passed by the respondents to extent that they deny seniority and consequential benefits to the petitioner.
[Vinod Kumar v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2023 SCC OnLine Del 6011, decided on 25-09-2023]
*Judgment authored by- Justice V. Kameswar Rao
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the Petitioner: K.C. Mittal, Yugansh Mittal and Vaibhav Yadav, Advocates;
For the Respondents: Avnish Ahlawat, Standing Counsel with Nitesh Kumar Singh, Tania Ahlawat, Palak Rohmetra, Laavanya Kaushik and Aliza Alam, Advocates
Buy Constitution of India HERE
Buy Penal Code, 1860 HERE
