High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh
Case Law Search
The Haryana State Minor Irrigation and v. Paramjit Singh Kohli - RSA-3178-2005  RD-P&H 2032 (27 March 2006)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.
R.S.A. No. 3178 of 2005
Date of Decision: March 27, 2006
The Haryana State Minor Irrigation and
Tubewell Corporation Ltd., Chandigarh and another.
Paramjit Singh Kohli
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINEY MITTAL.
Present:- Mr. D.K. Khanna, Advocate
for the appellants.
Mr. Azad Singh, Advocate
for the respondent.
VINEY MITTAL, J. (ORAL)
The defendants Haryana State Minor Irrigation and Tubewell Corporation Ltd., and its Managing Director are the appellants. They have lost concurrently before the two Courts below.
The plaintiff filed a suit for declaration claiming that the order dated May 29, 1998 passed by the Managing Director of the Corporation R.S.A. No. 3178 of 2005 
was illegal, bad, null and void and violative of the principles of natural justice and contrary to the Civil Service Rules, and therefore, was liable to be set aside. He also claimed mandatory injunction against the defendants for directing them to treat the suspension period as duty period and release all the consequential benefits to the plaintiff.
The facts which emerge from the record show that the plaintiff was involved in a criminal case under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Consequently, he was also suspended by the Department.
After the criminal trial, the plaintiff was acquitted by the Special Judge, vide judgment dated April 1, 1998. On his acquittal, the plaintiff was ordered to be reinstated in service. However, vide order dated May 29, 1998, his suspension period was ordered to be treated as non-duty period but the charge-sheet issued against the plaintiff was ordered to be dropped.
Both the Courts below have relied upon the provisions of Rules 7.3 and 7.5 of the Punjab Civil Services Rules Vol. I Part I to hold that if an official was suspended on criminal charges and was ultimately acquitted by the criminal Court of the blame on which he was suspended, then the said employee would be entitled to full allowances for the period of his suspension. Consequently, the suit filed by the plaintiff was decreed and the appeal of the defendants failed before the learned first Appellate Court.
Nothing has been shown that the findings recorded by both the Courts below suffer from any infirmity or are contrary to record.
No question of law, much less any substantial question of law, arises in the present appeal.
R.S.A. No. 3178 of 2005 
March 27, 2006 (VINEY MITTAL)
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.