Sukh Devi vs Haryana Vidyut Parsaran Nigam Limited

M.M. Singh Bedi, J.—Petitioner is widow of Badan Singh Dhillon who has expired after attaining the age of superannuation on 31.1.2004. Through the instant writ petition, the petitioner seeks a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the letter dated 13.6.2008, Annexure P5, vide which the respondents have informed the petitioner that the suspension of her husband had been treated as leave of the kind due instead of duty period. The letter dated 30.1.2009, Annexure P6, has also been challenged by virtue of which leave for the period in respect of her late husband remained under suspension has been determined to regularise the suspension period w.e.f. 30.7.2001 to 24.4.2003.

The admitted facts are that an FIR was registered on 30.7.2001 against husband of the petitioner u/s 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. He was acquitted on 2.12.2004, The order of acquittal was upheld by the High Court and Hon''ble the Apex Court on 21.7.2005 and 23.1.2006 vide Annexure P2 and Annexure P3, respectively. The husband of the petitioner filed a Writ Petition No. 7649 of 2005 for a direction to the respondents to release the pension and other retiral benefits. The said writ petition was disposed of with a direction to the respondents to treat the legal notice as representation and take a decision within a period of four months. In compliance with, the said order the respondents have passed order dated 20.9.2005 releasing 100% provisional pension withholding the retiral benefits. On 16.4.2003 the respondents had issued a charge-sheet. A reply to the charge-sheet was filed denying the allegations. No action was taken by the respondents on the basis of charge-sheet till the death of petitioner''s husband who unfortunately died on 3.4.2006. On retiral benefits having not been released by the respondents, the petitioner was compelled to file a writ petition. On 3.9.2009, the matter was taken up before this Court when counsel for the respondents stated that an amount of Rs. 3,10,074/- had been paid to the petitioner and remaining amount would be paid after deducting some amount taken as advance by the deceased husband of the petitioner.

The respondents vide letter dated 13.6.2008, Annexure P5, had intimated the petitioner that the suspension order would be considered as leave of the kind due and that her husband would not be entitled for full pay and allowances as he was acquitted on the basis of benefit of doubt.

I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and considered the facts and circumstances of the case.

Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the judgments in case Hukam Singh Vs. State of Haryana and another and Shashi Kumar v. Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited and another, 2005 (1) RSJ 718, holding that the concept of honourable acquittal or full exoneration has no place in a criminal trial. On acquittal of a person he would be entitled to all the back wages. Similar is the ratio of law in case Ram Kumar v. HVPNL, 2002,(1) RSJ 187.

This Court in Sardara Ram v. UHBVNL and others, CWP No. 23510 of 2011, decided on 5.10.2013, after taking into consideration the judgments in favour of the petitioner and the judgments against the petitioner i.e., AIR 1994 552 (SC); 2013 (3) SLJ 84 (P & H.); Ranchhodji Chaturji Thakore Vs. Superintendent Engineer, Gujarat Electricity Board, Himmatnagar, (Gujarat) and another, ; Krishnakant Raghunath Bibhavnekar Vs. State of Maharashtra and others, ; Hukmi Chand Vs. Jhabua Cooperative Central Bank Ltd., Jhabua (M.P.) and Another, ; Mohinder Singh v. State of Punjab and others, CWP No. 17910 of 2011, decided on July 1, 2013; Bala Ram v. Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam and others, CWP No. 14645 of 2010, decided on February 29, 2012, has held that in every case, on exoneration in disciplinary or criminal proceedings, a delinquent official cannot be held entitled to full salary and that denial of salary to an employee would not in all circumstances be illegal. The circumstances of each case are to be taken into consideration. In the present case, the respondents had not taken disciplinary proceedings against the husband of the petitioner for his conduct which led to the trial and his acquittal. The acquittal of the husband of the petitioner has been upheld by Hon''ble the Apex Court vide Annexure P3. It is not a case where any motive can be attributed to the petitioner for staying away from the official duties. It was always open to the respondents to initiate departmental proceedings and punish him on the basis of conduct leading to his conviction. The respondents having not opted to follow the said course, cannot deny the benefit of full emoluments of the suspension period. 9. The petition is allowed. Letter dated 13.6.2008, Annexure P5, and letter dated 30.1.2009, Annexure P6, are set aside. It is directed that the respondents will release the entire salary for the suspension period from 30.7.2001 to 24.4.2003 after adjusting the subsistence allowance already paid within a period of three months after the receipt of certified copy of this order. In case the amount is not released within a period of three months after the receipt of a certified copy of this order, the petitioner will be entitled to interest on the amount due @ 12 per cent per annum.