No guilt but no pay? No way: 25 years on, Punjab and Haryana High Court restores back wages to clerk exonerated thrice

The order added that such a course of action, without cogent justification, reflects arbitrariness and creates a reasonable apprehension that the inquiry process was pursued with a predetermined outcome, especially when the material on record consistently supported the petitioner.

Noting that the petitioner is not at fault for the respondent corporation’s administrative lapse in concluding the inquiry after 10 years, the court said that such action is arbitrary and contrary to settled principles of natural justice and fairness in administrative decision-making, as it effectively penalises the petitioner despite no proven misconduct.

25-year legal battle

• The petitioner, Attar Singh, a clerk with the municipal corporation, was placed under suspension on December 6, 2000, following the registration of an FIR alleging he had tampered with official records in connivance with a contractor.
• Although a Ludhiana trial court acquitted him in October 2010, granting him the “benefit of doubt due to lack of evidence,” he was not reinstated until July 14, 2011.
• Despite his acquittal, Singh was subjected to three separate departmental inquiries in 2012, 2014, and 2016.
• Every single inquiry officer exonerated him, with the final 2016 report explicitly recommending that his suspension be treated as a “duty period” for all purposes.
• However, the commissioner of the municipal corporation issued an order in August 2016 treating the period as “duty” for service continuity but denying him any wages beyond the subsistence allowance already received.
• Appearing for the petitioner, advocate Karina Kalra submitted that the petitioner was not merely acquitted by the trial court on account of lack of evidence, but was also exonerated in three separate departmental inquiries, with the last inquiry report unequivocally recommending that the suspension period be treated as a duty period.

‘Decision must be based on reasons’

• It is incontrovertible that the departmental inquiry initiated in 2000 culminated for the first time only in the year 2012, resulting in exonerating the petitioner.
• The petitioner was thrice subjected to departmental inquiry in the years 2012, 2014, and 2016, and on each occasion the petitioner was exonerated by the inquiry officer.
• It is a trite law that any decision arrived at by any authority must be based on reasons.
• From the sequence of events, it appears that the respondent-corporation remained dissatisfied with the inquiry reports, which had consistently exonerated the petitioner.
• The record reveals that even after the first inquiry report exonerated the petitioner, dissatisfaction was recorded, and the matter was again entrusted to the additional commissioner for a fresh inquiry.
• The subsequent report also returned findings in favour of the petitioner and recommended that the period of suspension be treated as a duty period.
• Despite these consistent conclusions, the competent authority proceeded to pass the impugned order denying the petitioner salary for the suspension period, without recording any reasons for disagreeing with the inquiry reports.
• The petitioner was not only acquitted but was also exonerated in three departmental inquiries.
• Permitting such denial would amount to visiting the petitioner with adverse consequences for no fault of his own, which the law does not countenance.