High Court · 2025

1. Heard Sri Madhvendra Singh, learned Advocate holding brief of Sri Ram Pyare, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State.

2. By means of this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitoiner has assailed the order dated 21.01.2020 whereby his claim for payment of salary for the period running from 22.08.2009 till 19.01.2019, the period during which the petitioner continued to be under suspension on account of pending criminal case, has been rejected.

3. Challenging the order impugned here in this petition learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner was placed under suspension on 22.08.2009 upon his conviction in Crime No.135 of 2002 under Sections 363, 366, 342, 368, 376, 394 IPC, vide Session Trial No.372 of 2002 and sending him to jail to serve out sentence vide order dated 30.07.2009. It is submitted that upon a criminal appeal being filed before this court against this conviction and sentence in Session Trial No.372 of 2002 being Criminal Appeal No.4560 of 2009, this Court allowed the same and acquitted petitioner of the criminal charges and directed for his release from jail.

4. It is as a consequence to the order passed in the criminal appeal on 08.04.2016 that the petitioner came to be reinstated revoking the suspension order only on 19.01.2019 and thereafter he continued to serve the respondent establishment till 30.04.2023 when he got superannuated. It is thus submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner remained under suspension for no fault of his but for the conviction in criminal case and he having been acquitted in the criminal case, become entitled to full pension as a consequence of reinstatement with effect from 19.01.2019 and for his respectful retirement from the respondent-establishment.

5. It is argued that the act and conduct of the respondents in not providing petitioner full pension and not giving arrears of salary for the period running from 22.08.2009 till 19.01.2019 leads to a manifest error and then too in passing the order rejecting the claim only on the ground that petitioner got reinstated in the year 2019 and hence would not be entitled for any salary for the period he has been under suspension. In support of his claim learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon a Division Bench Judgment of this Court in the case of Vijendra Pal Singh v. Union of India and 4 others (Writ A No.1532 of 2016 decided on 22.01.2020) wherein even in the matter of an employee dismissed from service on account of conviction in a criminal case, he was directed to be reinstated with full consequential benefits upon his acquittal in appeal. It is therefore, contended that the case of the petitioner in the instant case stands on a much better footing than of that petitioner.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further relied upon authority of this Court in the case of Virendra Kumar Sharma v. State of U.P. and two others (Writ A No.36420 of 2015 decided on 30.10.2019). In that case the petitioner was even not permitted to continue and only on account of criminal charge being proved in a trial, he was terminated from employment. Upon acquittal in appeal he ran from pillar to post but was not reinstated on one ground or the other. The Court in the said judgment held the approach of the respondent authority to be an example of high handedness and accordingly directed for full payment of all the dues which a regular employee would have otherwise been entitled upon attaining the age of superannuation. Relevant paragraph of the judgment is reproduced hereunder: "In Raj Narain vs Union of India & ors, reported in (2019) 5 SCC 809, the Apex Court has found that the criminal proceedings were initiated at the behest of the employer, and the employee when acquitted, would be entitled to claim full wages for the period he was kept out of duty during the pendency of the criminal proceedings and no departmental enquiry was held against him. The departmental enquiry though was initiated but dropped therein and the employees took four years to reinstate him by revoking his suspension after acquittal. In the instant case, while contesting his claim for reinstatement, the petitioner has attained the age of superannuation on 1.6.2015, just before filing of the present petition, he was denied reinstatement on frivolous grounds. The petitioner, therefore, shall be deemed to be reinstated in service w.e.f the date of the order of acquittal dated 26.3.2014 passed by the competent court. Since, the petitioner has been deprived of working on account of illegal approach and high-handed attitude of the respondents. He was illegally denied entry into service by the respondents, he is held entitled to the full salary and allowance from the date of acquittal ie:26.3.2014 till the date of superannuation ie: 1.6.2015, after adjustment of the amounts already paid towards subsistence allowance. He is also entitled to post retiral benefits as admissible to the Collection Amin as per the service Rules. All payments admissible to the petitioner shall be computed and paid within the period of two months from the date of submission of certified copy of this order."

7. Per contra, learned Standing Counsel has sought to defend the order for the reasons assigned therein and placed heavy reliance upon various paragraphs of counter afÏdavit in which justification has been shown for denying the claim of the petitioner for salary for the period petitioner had remained under suspension.

8. Having heard learned counsel for the respective parties and having perused the records, the only question that requires determination by this court in this petition is, as to whether petitioner could have been denied salary for the period he remained under suspension only for the reason that he was convicted in the session trial.

9. From the perusal of the record, it transpires that no departmental proceeding was ever instituted against the petitioner while he was placed under suspension as a consequence to the conviction in the criminal case and resultantly he being detained in jail to serve out sentence awarded to him and the authorities were interestingly satisfied to keep him under suspension until the appeal preferred by the petitioner came to be finally allowed acquitting the petitioner in the criminal case. The respondents themselves reinstated the petitioner and accordingly, started paying him salary and even after his attaining age of superannuation finalised his pension. However, full pension was not paid to the petitioner as claimed and upon his application being preferred to decide the claim for his salary for the period he remained under suspension, the decision came to be taken by the authority only to the effect that since he was under suspension he could not have been paid salary.

10. Admittedly there is no order passed by the disciplinary authority or the Department at any point of time to the effect that the petitioner would be reinstated but without salary, nor any decision was taken at any point of time that petitioner would not be paid arrears for the period he was kept under suspension. At least I do not find any whisper in the entire counter afÏdavit to this effect. The legal principle in service jurisprudence for placing an employee under suspension makes it clear that suspension is not a punishment. An employee is placed under suspension during pendency or in contemplation of disciplinary proceedings only for the reason that he may not influence the enquiry or otherwise may not influence the departmental witnesses (Union of India v. Ashok Kumar Agarwal:(2013) 16 SCC 147). In matters of criminal cases where the employee is sent to jail it is by default that he is placed under suspension due to provisions contained under the relevant service rules. This therefore, shows clearly that if an employee has been placed under suspension in the departmental proceedings then he is to be reinstated by taking a decision whether to pay him salary for the period he has been under suspension or not and in the event any employee is placed under suspension on the ground of implication in a criminal case as the employee may be sent to jail and remained under confinement, may be during pendency of trial or as a result of conviction in a criminal case, then authority would be terminating him from employment as a result of the decision to be taken by the authority under the relevant Discipline and Appeal Rules or otherwise rules applicable or relevant Government order/Circular issued in that regard. However, in the event no such eventuality takes place then ultimately if an employee is acquitted in a criminal case and as a result thereof, he is reinstated then it will be taken that he remained under suspension not for his own fault but for the pendency of a criminal case or any wrongful decision, which has been reversed at higher forum.

11. In such circumstances, therefore, an employee cannot be made to suffer for an act of Court if it took time in disposal of criminal appeal.

12. In such above view of the matter therefore, the decision taken by the respondents in passing the order rejecting the claim of the petitioner for payment of the salary for the period he has remained under suspension, cannot be approved.

13. This writ petition accordingly succeeds and is allowed. The order dated 21.01.2020 passed by the District Homeopathic Medical Oficer, Sonebhadra impugned in this petition as Annexure 17 is hereby quashed. Petitioner is held entitled to arrears of salary for the period running from 22.08.2009 till 19.01.2019 and also full pension.

14. The authorities are directed to compute the amount with all periodical increments as if petitioner had been in service without suspension and after due calculation the pension of the petitioner will be re- fixed. The entire arrears of the salary for the period aforesaid and difference of arrears for the refixation of the petitioner within a maximum period of three months of production of certified copy of this order. It is made clear that if the order is not complied with within the prescribed period as directed hereinabove, petitioner will be entitled to interest @ 12 per cent right from the date he was placed under suspension till actual payment is made. Order Date :- 17.7.2025/Deepika DEEPIKA SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

1. Heard Sri Madhvendra Singh, learned Advocate holding brief of Sri Ram Pyare, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State.

2. By means of this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitoiner has assailed the order dated 21.01.2020 whereby his claim for payment of salary for the period running from 22.08.2009 till 19.01.2019, the period during which the petitioner continued to be under suspension on account of pending criminal case, has been rejected.

3. Challenging the order impugned here in this petition learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner was placed under suspension on 22.08.2009 upon his conviction in Crime No.135 of 2002 under Sections 363, 366, 342, 368, 376, 394 IPC, vide Session Trial No.372 of 2002 and sending him to jail to serve out sentence vide order dated 30.07.2009. It is submitted that upon a criminal appeal being filed before this court against this conviction and sentence in Session Trial No.372 of 2002 being Criminal Appeal No.4560 of 2009, this Court allowed the same and acquitted petitioner of the criminal charges and directed for his release from jail.

4. It is as a consequence to the order passed in the criminal appeal on 08.04.2016 that the petitioner came to be reinstated revoking the suspension order only on 19.01.2019 and thereafter he continued to serve the respondent establishment till 30.04.2023 when he got superannuated. It is thus submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner remained under suspension for no fault of his but for the conviction in criminal case and he having been acquitted in the criminal case, become entitled to full pension as a consequence of reinstatement with effect from 19.01.2019 and for his respectful retirement from the respondent-establishment.

5. It is argued that the act and conduct of the respondents in not providing petitioner full pension and not giving arrears of salary for the period running from 22.08.2009 till 19.01.2019 leads to a manifest error and then too in passing the order rejecting the claim only on the ground that petitioner got reinstated in the year 2019 and hence would not be entitled for any salary for the period he has been under suspension. In support of his claim learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon a Division Bench Judgment of this Court in the case of Vijendra Pal Singh v. Union of India and 4 others (Writ A No.1532 of 2016 decided on 22.01.2020) wherein even in the matter of an employee dismissed from service on account of conviction in a criminal case, he was directed to be reinstated with full consequential benefits upon his acquittal in appeal. It is therefore, contended that the case of the petitioner in the instant case stands on a much better footing than of that petitioner.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further relied upon authority of this Court in the case of Virendra Kumar Sharma v. State of U.P. and two others (Writ A No.36420 of 2015 decided on 30.10.2019). In that case the petitioner was even not permitted to continue and only on account of criminal charge being proved in a trial, he was terminated from employment. Upon acquittal in appeal he ran from pillar to post but was not reinstated on one ground or the other. The Court in the said judgment held the approach of the respondent authority to be an example of high handedness and accordingly directed for full payment of all the dues which a regular employee would have otherwise been entitled upon attaining the age of superannuation. Relevant paragraph of the judgment is reproduced hereunder: "In Raj Narain vs Union of India & ors, reported in (2019) 5 SCC 809, the Apex Court has found that the criminal proceedings were initiated at the behest of the employer, and the employee when acquitted, would be entitled to claim full wages for the period he was kept out of duty during the pendency of the criminal proceedings and no departmental enquiry was held against him. The departmental enquiry though was initiated but dropped therein and the employees took four years to reinstate him by revoking his suspension after acquittal. In the instant case, while contesting his claim for reinstatement, the petitioner has attained the age of superannuation on 1.6.2015, just before filing of the present petition, he was denied reinstatement on frivolous grounds. The petitioner, therefore, shall be deemed to be reinstated in service w.e.f the date of the order of acquittal dated 26.3.2014 passed by the competent court. Since, the petitioner has been deprived of working on account of illegal approach and high-handed attitude of the respondents. He was illegally denied entry into service by the respondents, he is held entitled to the full salary and allowance from the date of acquittal ie:26.3.2014 till the date of superannuation ie: 1.6.2015, after adjustment of the amounts already paid towards subsistence allowance. He is also entitled to post retiral benefits as admissible to the Collection Amin as per the service Rules. All payments admissible to the petitioner shall be computed and paid within the period of two months from the date of submission of certified copy of this order."

7. Per contra, learned Standing Counsel has sought to defend the order for the reasons assigned therein and placed heavy reliance upon various paragraphs of counter afÏdavit in which justification has been shown for denying the claim of the petitioner for salary for the period petitioner had remained under suspension.

8. Having heard learned counsel for the respective parties and having perused the records, the only question that requires determination by this court in this petition is, as to whether petitioner could have been denied salary for the period he remained under suspension only for the reason that he was convicted in the session trial.

9. From the perusal of the record, it transpires that no departmental proceeding was ever instituted against the petitioner while he was placed under suspension as a consequence to the conviction in the criminal case and resultantly he being detained in jail to serve out sentence awarded to him and the authorities were interestingly satisfied to keep him under suspension until the appeal preferred by the petitioner came to be finally allowed acquitting the petitioner in the criminal case. The respondents themselves reinstated the petitioner and accordingly, started paying him salary and even after his attaining age of superannuation finalised his pension. However, full pension was not paid to the petitioner as claimed and upon his application being preferred to decide the claim for his salary for the period he remained under suspension, the decision came to be taken by the authority only to the effect that since he was under suspension he could not have been paid salary.

10. Admittedly there is no order passed by the disciplinary authority or the Department at any point of time to the effect that the petitioner would be reinstated but without salary, nor any decision was taken at any point of time that petitioner would not be paid arrears for the period he was kept under suspension. At least I do not find any whisper in the entire counter afÏdavit to this effect. The legal principle in service jurisprudence for placing an employee under suspension makes it clear that suspension is not a punishment. An employee is placed under suspension during pendency or in contemplation of disciplinary proceedings only for the reason that he may not influence the enquiry or otherwise may not influence the departmental witnesses (Union of India v. Ashok Kumar Agarwal:(2013) 16 SCC 147). In matters of criminal cases where the employee is sent to jail it is by default that he is placed under suspension due to provisions contained under the relevant service rules. This therefore, shows clearly that if an employee has been placed under suspension in the departmental proceedings then he is to be reinstated by taking a decision whether to pay him salary for the period he has been under suspension or not and in the event any employee is placed under suspension on the ground of implication in a criminal case as the employee may be sent to jail and remained under confinement, may be during pendency of trial or as a result of conviction in a criminal case, then authority would be terminating him from employment as a result of the decision to be taken by the authority under the relevant Discipline and Appeal Rules or otherwise rules applicable or relevant Government order/Circular issued in that regard. However, in the event no such eventuality takes place then ultimately if an employee is acquitted in a criminal case and as a result thereof, he is reinstated then it will be taken that he remained under suspension not for his own fault but for the pendency of a criminal case or any wrongful decision, which has been reversed at higher forum.

11. In such circumstances, therefore, an employee cannot be made to suffer for an act of Court if it took time in disposal of criminal appeal.

12. In such above view of the matter therefore, the decision taken by the respondents in passing the order rejecting the claim of the petitioner for payment of the salary for the period he has remained under suspension, cannot be approved.

13. This writ petition accordingly succeeds and is allowed. The order dated 21.01.2020 passed by the District Homeopathic Medical Oficer, Sonebhadra impugned in this petition as Annexure 17 is hereby quashed. Petitioner is held entitled to arrears of salary for the period running from 22.08.2009 till 19.01.2019 and also full pension.

14. The authorities are directed to compute the amount with all periodical increments as if petitioner had been in service without suspension and after due calculation the pension of the petitioner will be re- fixed. The entire arrears of the salary for the period aforesaid and difference of arrears for the refixation of the petitioner within a maximum period of three months of production of certified copy of this order. It is made clear that if the order is not complied with within the prescribed period as directed hereinabove, petitioner will be entitled to interest @ 12 per cent right from the date he was placed under suspension till actual payment is made. Order Date :- 17.7.2025/Deepika DEEPIKA SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad