Authority: High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh

Order Date: 23 February 2023

Case Overview

  • Petitioner: Sat Pal (former Assistant Manager, Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd.)
  • Respondents: Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited and others
  • Case Number: CWP No. 27550 of 2015 (O&M), Reserved 27 January 2023, Decision 23 February 2023
  • Nature of Petition: Writ petition under Article 226 seeking certiorari to quash/modifiy order dated 21‑Oct‑2009 that treated suspension period as “leave of kind due” and mandamus directing treatment as period on duty with full salary and benefits.
  • Background:
  • Joined erstwhile Haryana State Electricity Board (now UHBVNL) in 1972; promoted to ALM in 1979.
  • Suspended on 26 May 1995 following FIR No. 198 dated 7 May 1995 under Section 302 IPC (private dispute resulting in death).
  • Acquitted by Additional Sessions Judge, Yamuna Nagar on 10 Dec 1998.
  • State appealed; High Court dismissed appeal on 18 July 2008.
  • Charge sheet dated 9 Apr 2001 served; no further action; reinstated on 11 Jul 2001.
  • Represented on 3 Nov 2006 for regularisation and full salary for suspension period.
  • Respondent No.3 (UHBVNL) order dated 22 Dec 2008 dropped charge sheet.
  • Letter dated 8 Apr 2009 recommended regularisation; legal notice dated 20 Oct 2009.
  • Order dated 21 Oct 2009 modified earlier order, treating suspension (19 May 1995 – 11 Jul 2001) as “leave of kind due”.
  • Petitioner retired on 31 Jan 2012; subsequent representations in 2012, 2013, 2015 remained unanswered, leading to the writ petition.
  • Legal Arguments:
  • Petitioner: Suspension period should be treated as period on duty; entitlement to full salary and consequential benefits.
  • Respondents: No work, no pay principle; only terminal benefits payable.
  • Statutory Provision: Rule 7.3(2) of the Punjab Civil Services Rules – allows full pay if employee fully exonerated, but permits reduced pay if delay attributable to employee.
  • Precedents Cited:
  • Sucha Singh v. State of Punjab (2014) – dismissal of claim for back wages where employee dismissed under Prevention of Corruption Act.
  • Union of India v. Jaipal Singh (2000) – employee acquitted after conviction in private offence not entitled to back wages.
  • Ranchhodji Chaturji Thakore v. Superintendent Engineer (1996) – no back wages for employee involved in crime even if acquitted.
  • Reserve Bank of India v. Bhopal Singh (1994) – employer not liable for salary during employee’s self‑inflicted absence.
  • Raj Narain v. Union of India (2019) – reaffirmed that acquittal does not automatically confer back wages unless prosecution was malicious or initiated by employer.

Final Outcome

  • The Court held that, in view of the cited authorities and the nature of the criminal proceedings (private dispute under IPC), the petitioner is not entitled to have his suspension period regularised as duty period nor to claim back wages.
  • The order dated 21‑Oct‑2009 treating the suspension as “leave of kind due” stands affirmed.
  • The writ petition is dismissed.

Topics: Employment Law, Court Judgment