Employee Placed Under Suspension During Detention Can't Be Denied Wages Upon Acquittal In Absence Of Any Disciplinary Enquiry: Allahabad HC

The Allahabad High Court has held that an employee placed under suspension during the period of detention cannot be denied wages upon acquittal in the absence of any disciplinary enquiry and bail during the period of suspension.

The Court further held that such an employee who has been suspended during the period of detention needs to prove that he was not gainfully employed during such period.

“The principle of 'no work no pay' could have been attracted if petitioner had enjoyed bail in criminal case and had been merely kept under suspension but this is not the case either. Petitioner remained in detention until he was acquitted. There was no question of petitioner giving any certificate that he was not gainfully employed anywhere during the period he was under suspension. One must draw difference between an under-trial on bail and convicted person in jail,” held Justice Ajit Kumar.

Factual Background

While working as a Routine Grade Clerk, the petitioner was implicated in connection with a criminal offence and remained in jail from 9th August, 2009 to 1st August 2010. Thereafter, the petitioner continued to be in detention till 2016. During the period of detention, the petitioner was placed under suspension. Pursuant to his acquittal in the criminal case, he was reinstated.

Counsel for the petitioner argued that no disciplinary/ departmental enquiry was held against the petitioner and he was only placed in suspension because of his detention. It was argued that upon revocation of the suspension order, the petitioner became entitled to wages for the entire period of suspension which were denied by the respondent.

It was argued that the detention of the petitioner was a circumstance beyond his control which prevented him for discharging his duites. It was argued that the pay could not be rejected on grounds of 'no work no pay' when the detention was beyond his control and that there was a legitimate expectation that the petitioner would resume work as soon as he was released from jail/detention.

Counsel for the respondent argued that the department could not be blamed for the non-discharge of duties by the petitioner because he was in detention. Since the petitioner was in detention, it was required that he be placed under suspension. Further, it was argued that since petitioner was not acquitted honorably, he was not entitled to wages for the period of suspension.

High Court Verdict

The Court observed that the petitioner was placed under simple suspension because of his detention. There was no department/ disciplinary inquiry conducted against the petitioner for placing him under suspension.

The Court held that the argument regarding “honourably acquitted” stands ground if there was any internal inquiry to support the suspension. That being not done, the suspension was solely due to the detention of the petitioner.

“In the absence of any departmental proceeding being drawn, the only conclusion that can be drawn is that petitioner was restrained from discharging duties on account of his detention in

jail in connection with a criminal case a circumstance to be taken as beyond his control and his innocence ultimately being proved by way of acquittal in the said criminal case, he should not be penalized.”

The Court held since the petitioner remained in detention and was not released on bail during the period of suspension, he was not required to produce a certificate to prove that he was not gainfully employed during such period. The Court held that even though it was a simple acquittal, the circumstances for his detention were beyond his control.

Relying on the decision of the Supreme Court in Raj Narain v. Union of India and others, the Court directed the respondent to pay the arrears of salary to the petitioner for the period of his detention.

Case Title: Anil Kumar Singh v. State Of U.P. And 4 Others [WRIT - A No. - 11555 of 2021]

Click Here To Read/Download Order