CWP No. 9887 of 2015 1

241 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH

CWP No. 9887 of 2015 (OM)
Date of Decision: 24.09.2019.

Vinod Kumar
… Petitioner
Versus

State of Punjab and others … Respondents

CORAM : Hon’ble Mr. Justice Jitendra Chauhan

Present : Mr. Sunny Singla, Advocate
for the petitioner.

Ms. Anju Sharma Kaushik, DAG Punjab.

JITENDRA CHAUHAN.J.(ORAL)

The short question arising for consideration in this civil

writ petition is as to whether the petitioner is entitled to treat his period

of suspension as duty period or not. The order dated 22.06.2013

(Annexure P-4) has been impugned in the present writ petition in this

regard.

The petitioner was involved in FIR No. 129 dated

05.08.2011 registered under Sections 498A, 406, 506 and 323 read

with Section 34 of IPC at Police Station Mansa city District Mansa.

Thereafter, the matter was compromised and the FIR was quashed vide

judgment dated 18.02.2013 (Annexure P-3). However, during the

continuation of criminal proceedings, the petitioner was placed under

suspension with effect from 07.08.2011 to 04.07.2012 vide orders

1 of 3
02-10-2019 01:50:10 :::
CWP No. 9887 of 2015 2

Annexure P-1 and Annexure P-2. After the culmination of criminal

proceedings, the petitioner moved to the department for treating the

period of suspension as the period on duty. However, the request was

declined vide impugned order dated 22.06.2013 (Annexure P-4).

On the other hand, on behalf of the respondents, it is

contended that the suspension of the petitioner was wholly justified

due to his involvement in a criminal case, therefore, the period of

suspension cannot be treated as a period on duty.

Heard.

The controversy involved in the present petition has

already been decided by this court in CWP No. 28419 of 2013 decided

on 23.04.2018 titled as “Nirmal Singh versus State of Punjab and

others” The relevant paragraph of the judgment is set out as under:-

“In the instant case, the reasons for placing the petitioner
under suspension cannot be said to be relatable, in any
manner, to the conduct of the petitioner which could be termed
as prejudicial to either his employer or his employment. He
has not been alleged to be guilty of any indiscipline or a
behaviour unbecoming of an employee. He has also not been
alleged of any act of commission or omission which can been
said to be detrimental to the interests of his employer, in
discharge of his official duties. The circumstances which led to
his suspension are largely attributable to the matrimonial
discord arisen between the petitioner and his wife, and thus,
are personal in nature and have no relation to his official
placement. Therefore, the respondent-authorities, though,
rightly considered the period of suspension as period spent on
duty for the purposes of pension and seniority, but fell in error
while declining him grant of full pay and allowances therefor.

In view of the above, impugned order Annexure P-4 is

2 of 3
02-10-2019 01:50:10 :::
CWP No. 9887 of 2015 3

partially modified to the extent that benefit of Rule 7.3 B(3)
ibid be extended to the petitioner in totality by granting him
full pay and allowances for the period of suspension.
Allowed.”

In view of the above, the present civil writ petition is

allowed. The impugned order dated 22.06.2013 (Annexure P-4) is

hereby set aside. The respondents are directed to treat the period of

suspension with effect from 07.08.2011 to 04.07.2012 as the period on

duty.

24.09.2019. (JITENDRA CHAUHAN)
SN JUDGE

Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No

3 of 3
02-10-2019 01:50:10 :::