Punjab and Haryana High Court: In the petitions where the petitioners were dismissed from service and later reinstated, they were neither paid allowance for the period from dismissal to reinstatement, nor the aforesaid period was treated as ‘period spent on duty’, Jaganmohan Bansal, J., noted that a common thread running through Fundamental Rules, Punjab Police Rules, 1934 (‘1934 Rules’) and Punjab Civil Services Rules (‘PCS Rules’) regarding payment of salary in case of reinstatement after dismissal from service was that the full salary should be paid in case of honorable acquittal/exoneration. However, in case of acquittal/exoneration other than honorable, payment of salary for the period of dismissal should be determined by competent authority at the time of reinstatement. The amount determined by the Competent Authority should not be less than the salary payable during suspension. Accordingly, the Court granted back wages to the petitioners.
Background
Since common issues were involved in the petitions, they were taken up together for adjudication in the present case. The petitioners were police officers and worked with Punjab Police. The petitioners were implicated in the FIR dated 25-10-2014 under Sections 394 and 34 of the Penal Code, 1860 and despite being acquitted in the various criminal cases pressed against them or were reinstated, they were denied their wages for the period they were not on duty. Additionally, in the records, the said period of leave was portrayed as ‘leave of kind due’ rather than ‘period spent on duty’.
Hence, the petitioners filed the present petition seeking their back wages and for the period to be considered as one ‘spent on duty’.
Analysis, Law, and Decision
The Court while placing reliance on various provisions of the 1934 Rules, PCS Rules and Article 311 of the Constitution, observed that it was beyond the pale of doubt that the petitioners were dismissed from service without conducting any inquiry as contemplated by Rule 16.24 of 1934 Rules read with Article 311 of the Constitution. The Court further observed that this was not the isolated case where the jurisdictional SSP of State had dispensed with inquiry. As soon as an FIR was registered against the police official, the jurisdictional Senior Superintendent of Police (‘SSPs’) opted to dispense with inquiry. Dispensing with inquiry should be an exception and not the rule, whereas respondents in almost every case had opted for an easy way of dispensing with inquiry.
Since, in the present case, as there was no departmental inquiry and the petitioners were reinstated after their acquittal in criminal proceedings, a question arose as to how their pay and allowances should be determined. The Court noted that a common thread running through Fundamental Rules, 1934 Rules and PCS rules regarding payment of salary in case of reinstatement after dismissal from service was that the full salary should be paid in case of honorable acquittal/exoneration. However, in case of acquittal/exoneration other than honorable, payment of salary for the period of dismissal should be determined by competent authority at the time of reinstatement. The amount determined by the Competent Authority should not be less than the salary payable during suspension.
For CWP No. 7776 of 2024, 7785 of 2024 and 11816 of 2024
From the perusal of judgment of acquittal passed in the case of petitioners, the Court observed that the petitioners faced full-fledged trial and were acquitted because prosecution witnesses did not support their case. The Court was unable to form an opinion that the petitioners were honorably acquitted. They were dismissed from service without holding inquiry. The respondent neither conducted inquiry nor waited for outcome of criminal proceedings.
Thus, the Court held that the petitioners were entitled to 50% of pay and allowances, which they would have received, had they not been dismissed from service. Additionally, the period of absence shall not be treated as a ‘period spent on duty’. On the contrary, in cases where the acquittal was honorable the petitioner was entitled to 100% back wages with the absence period to be considered as a ‘period spent on duty’.
For CWP No. 11440 of 2024
The Court observed that petitioner was discharged at the stage of framing charging because the Trial Court did not find any evidence against him. Since it was an honorable acquittal, the Court stated that petitioner was entitled to 100% back wages.
For CWP No. 11608 of 2024
Since, in this case, petitioner was acquitted because the complainant turned hostile, thus it could not be said that he was honorably acquitted. Therefore, he was entitled to 50% of back wages and period of absence should not be treated as ‘period spent on duty’.
For CWP No. 11395 of 2024
The petitioner was entitled to 100% of pay and allowances for the period from date of acquittal to date of reinstatement. The said period shall be treated as ‘period spent on duty’.
For CWP No. 743 of 1997
Since, in this case the petitioner was fully exonerated, he was entitled to 100% back wages for 1270 days and the absence period should be treated as ‘period spent on duty’.
The Court also ordered that the petitioners shall not be entitled to interest on back wages provided they receive their payment within three months post which, interest at the rate of 1% per mensem should be granted to them.
The Court further stated that the respondent authorities should avoid dismissing a police officer close on the heels of registration of the FIR. Such police officer might be suspended in terms of Rule 16.19 of the 1934 Rules and the departmental inquiry might be deferred, but it should not be dispensed with in a technical manner.
[Iqbal Singh v. State of Punjab, CWP 7776 of 2024,Order dated 29-05-2024]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the Petitioners: Ranjivan Singh, Advocate; Risham Raag Singh, Advocate; V. K. Sandhir, Advocate; Vipin Mahajan, Advocate; Chandanpreet Kaur Ahluwalia, Advocate; G. S. Bal, Senior Advocate with Lovepreet Kaur, Advocate; Raj Karan Singh Verka, Advocate and P. S. Dhaliwal, Advocate;
For the Respondents: Aman Dhir, DAG, Punjab and Sehajbir Singh, AAG Punjab.
Buy Constitution of India HERE
Buy Penal Code, 1860 HERE
