Employee Kept In Custody For Criminal Charges & Ultimately Acquitted Can't Be Denied Wages For Detention Period: Rajasthan HC
The Rajasthan High Court held that denying salary to an employee for the period when they were detained in custody on criminal charges–not relating to misconduct in discharge of official duties–and were subsequently acquitted, was inequitable. Justice Anand Sharma in his order said: "The broad and salutary principle is that where an employee is detained in custody on criminal charges...
The Rajasthan High Court held that denying salary to an employee for the period when they were detained in custody on criminal charges–not relating to misconduct in discharge of official duties–and were subsequently acquitted, was inequitable.
Justice Anand Sharma in his order said: "The broad and salutary principle is that where an employee is detained in custody on criminal charges not attributable to the employee's misconduct in the discharge of official duties and is subsequently acquitted, the employee cannot be made to suffer an avoidable punitive financial burden. This court finds that inequity results where an employee, who remained out of duty on account of detention (and not by his own volition), is treated more harshly than an employee who remained under suspension while on bail".
Referring to judicial pronouncements the high court further said,
“Where detention is the cause of non performance and the accused is ultimately acquitted, equity demands that the employee should not be saddled with financial prejudice for a period during which he could not possibly have worked.”
The petitioner was a constable when he was charges with criminal offences and sent in judicial custody. Upon his arrest, he was also suspended and departmental enquiry was initiated against him. After trial, he was acquitted, and his suspension was also revoked. Subsequently, the disciplinary authority also exonerated him from all the charges.
In the order by the disciplinary authority, there was an anomaly. While the penultimate part of the operative paragraph held that he was entitled to all pay and allowances for the period of suspension, the part subsequent to that laid down that the period of judicial custody shall be considered a period of absence and converted to leave without pay. Hence, the petition.
After hearing the contentions, the Court referred to Supreme Court case of Raj Narain v Union of India & Others in which under similar circumstances, the concerned person was held entitled for back wages from the date of his acquittal till the date of his reinstatement.
Further reference was made to the Allahabad High Court decision in Abhaya Chandra Mishra v State of U.P. in which distinction was given between an under-trial on bail who may remain suspended but available for duty, and a person who was physically detained and was unable to render service. In this background, it was held that where detention prevented performance of duty and the employee was ultimately acquitted, applying “no work no pay” was inequitable.
The Court also frowned upon the inconsistency in the disciplinary order observing that,
“It is settled law that when an authority records such a concession or direction, the same cannot be surreptitiously negated by an inconsistent concluding clause in the same operative order… The canon of reasoned decision making prohibits the Authority from awarding a benefit and in the very next breath withdrawing it without any reasoned or recorded justification…This Court cannot countenance an order that is self-defeating and which inflicts hardship by way of a cryptic and unexplained denial.”
In this background, denial of salary to the petitioner was held to be arbitrary and unreasonable. Accordingly, the petition was allowed directing release of payment to the petitioner.
Title: Harbajan Singh v Superintendent of Police
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 283