1 / 7 WPS No.5336 of 2023 2025:CGHC:14497 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 5336 of 2023 1. Pankaj Kumar Singh S/o Late Shri Mahadev Singh Aged About 44 Years R/o Plot No.7/2, Hari Nagar, Katul Board, Durg, Police Station Mohan Nagar, Tahsil And District Durg (C.G.) ... Petitioner versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Department Of Home/Police, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralay, Police Station And Post Rakhi, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2. Director General Of Police (DGP) Police Headquarters (PHQ), Sector- 19, Police Station And Post Rakhi, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3. Deputy Inspector General Of Police (D.I.G.P.) Administration, Police Headquarters (PHQ), Sector-19, Police Station And Post Rakhi, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 4. Assistant Inspector General Of Police (A.I.G.P.) Administration, Police Headquarters (PHQ), Sector-19, Police Station And Post Rakhi, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 5. Assistant Inspector General Of Police (A.I.G.P.) Selection, Police Headquarters (P.H.Q.) Sector-19, Police Station And Post Rakhi, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondents (Cause title is taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Shri Abhishek Pandey & Ms Swati Rani Saraf, Advocates For Respondents/ State Shri S.P. Kale, Addl. Adv. General Order on Board By Bibhu Datta Guru, J. 2 / 7 WPS No.5336 of 2023 26/03/2025 1. By the present writ petition, the petitioner is seeking for the following reliefs:- (i) That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to produce all the relevant records relating to case of the petitioner before this Hon'ble Court for its kind perusal. (ii) That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set aside/quash the impugned order dated 13.6.2018 (Annexure P/4) passed by respondent No. 3/DIGP, Administration, Raipur (CG) (iii) That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set aside/quash the appellate order dated 5.12.2018 (Annexure P/5) passed by respondent No. 2/DGP, PHQ, Raipur. (iv) That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set aside/quash the order dated 17.2.2021 (Annexure P/7) passed by respondent No 2/DGP, PHQ, Raipur. (v) That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to remit the matter back to respondent No 2/DGP, PHQ, Raipur and also to respondent No. 3/DIGP, Administration, Raipur for taking a decision afresh as to the entitlement of the petitioner for full salary of the suspension period ie. from 6.8.2014 to 6.9.2017 as per Fundamental Rule 54(B) at the earliest, preferably within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of the order to be passed by this Hon'ble Court. (vi) That this Hon'ble Court may further be pleased to direct respondents to give suitable compensation to the petitioner for the mental trauma and agony. harassment and hardships suffered by him as also cost of the litigation. 2. (a) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that while the petitioner was working as Constable (MT) on account of registration of an FIR No.184/2014 for offence under Sections 498(3), 323, 34 of IPC, the petitioner was arrested on 06/08/2014, therefore, he was placed under suspension by order dated 14/01/2025. According to the petitioner, on completion of trial by judgment dated 24/07/2017 3 / 7 WPS No.5336 of 2023 passed in criminal case No.6785/2014, the petitioner has been acquitted by the JMFC, Durg. After acquittal of the petitioner, the suspension order has been revoked on 07/09/2017. (b) Learned counsel would further submit that after revocation of the suspension order, the petitioner submitted a representation before the authorities and requested for payment of full salary for the period from 06/08/2014 to 06/09/2017, however, the same has been rejected by the order dated 13/06/2018. Against the said order, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the DGP, which has been dismissed on 05/12/2018 and thereafter, the review application has also been dismissed on 17/12/2021. (c) Learned counsel would also submit that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in a criminal case and has been kept under suspension for a long period. After acquittal from the criminal case, the petitioner has to be provided with the entire consequential benefits as if the order of suspension never passed. He would further submit that the petitioner is not at fault in any manner for being denial the consequential benefits for the intervening period. According to the Fundamental Rule 54, the moment there is judgment of acquittal, the petitioner ought to have been provided with all the consequential benefits. He would submit that while deciding about the suspension period, no opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioner as required under the FR 54. 3. On the other hand, learned State counsel would oppose the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner and would submit that admittedly, the petitioner was involved in a criminal case he was also arrested and hence he has been placed under suspension. He would 4 / 7 WPS No.5336 of 2023 submit that the petitioner is not entitled for anything in addition to what he has already received during the period of suspension. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the pleadings and documents. 5. At this juncture, it would be relevant to take note of certain provisions of the Fundamental Rules dealing with an employee who has been placed under suspension and who has been subsequently reinstated. FR 54B is the provision under which a decision has to be taken by the employer in the event of an employee is reinstated. For ready reference, sub-rules (1), (3),(5),(6) and (7), relevant for disposal of the present writ petition, are being reproduced hereinunder: FR 54B.- (1) When a Government servant who has been suspended is re-instated or would have been so re- instated but for his retirement on superannuation while under suspension, the authority competent to order re- instatement shall consider and make specific order- (a) regarding the pay and allowances to be paid to the Government servant for the period of suspension ending with re-instatement or the date of his retirement on superannuation, as the case may be, and (b) whether or not the said period shall be treated as a period spent on duty. xxx xxx xxx (3) Where the authority competent to order re- instatement is of the opinion that the suspension was wholly unjustified, the Government servant shall subject to the provisions of sub-rule (8), be paid the full pay and allowances to which he would have been entitled had he not been suspended: Provided that where such authority is of the opinion that the termination of the proceedings instituted against the Government servant had been delayed due to reason directly attributable to the Government servant it may, 5 / 7 WPS No.5336 of 2023 after giving him an opportunity to make his representation within 60 days from the date on which the communication in this regard is served in him and after considering the representation, if any, submitted by him direct, for reasons to be recorded in writing that the Government servant shall be paid for the period of such delay only such [amount (not being the whole)] of such pay and allowances as it may determine. xxx xxx xxx (5) in cases other than those falling under sub-rules (2) and (3) the Government servant shall subject to the provisions of sub-rules (8) and (9) be paid such [amount (not being the whole) of the full pay and allowances] to which he would have been entitled had he not been suspended, as the competent authority may determine, after giving notice to the Government servant of the quantum proposed and after considering the representation, if any, submitted by him in that connection within such period [which in no case shall exceed sixty days from the date on which the notice has been served as may be specified in the notice. (6) Where suspension is revoked pending finalisation of the disciplinary or court proceedings, any order passed under sub-rule (1) before the conclusion of the proceedings, against the Government servant, shall be reviewed on its own motion after the conclusion of the proceedings by the authority mentioned in sub-rule (1) who shall make an order according to the provisions of sub-rule (3) or sub-rule (5) as the case may be. (7) In a case falling under sub-rule (5) the period of suspension shall not be treated as a period spent on duty, unless the competent authority specifically directs that it shall be so treated for any specified purpose: Provided that if the Government servant so desires, such authority may order that the period of suspension shall be converted into leave of any kind due and admissible to the Government servant." 6. A plain reading of the aforesaid provision envisaged under the FR it clearly reflects that the authorities, after a final decision either in the departmental proceedings or in the court case, has to take a fresh 6 / 7 WPS No.5336 of 2023 decision with regard to how the period of suspension has to be treated and to what extent of benefit the employee shall be entitled for ? 7. If we read sub-rule (3), there is a clear mandate of the statute that there has to be a conclusion arrived at by the authorities in the department as to whether the suspension under the given facts was justified or unjustified. Likewise, sub-rule (5) further mandates that the authorities have to take a decision in this regard after giving a show cause notice to the petitioner/employee in respect of the proposed benefits by the State authority. Sub-rule (6) also stipulates that subsequent to the final outcome of the disciplinary proceedings or the court case, as the case may be, the authorities have to review the decision so far as how the period of suspension has to be treated. 8. It is an admitted position that after acquittal from the criminal case, the suspension order has been revoked. When the petitioner moved a representation for payment of full salary from 06/08/2014 to 06/09/2017, the case of the petitioner has been considered in accordance with the provisions of FR 54 and proper opportunity was afforded to the petitioner to putforth his case. From bare perusal of the order impugned, it is quite vivid that while deciding about the suspension period, notice was issued to the petitioner and even the petitioner submitted his reply to the notice and thereafter, the decision has been taken by the authorities and hence it cannot be said that due process has not been followed while dealing with the case of the petitioner. 9. Sub-rule (3) of FR 54B vests power in the competent authority to order that the employee will be paid the full pay and allowances for the period 7 / 7 WPS No.5336 of 2023 of suspension if he is of the opinion that the suspension of the employee was wholly unjustified. Hence, even where the employee is acquitted of the charges in the criminal trial for lack of evidence or otherwise, it is for the competent authority to form its opinion whether the suspension of the employee was wholly unjustified and so long as such opinion of the competent authority was a possible view in the facts and circumstances of the case and on the materials before him, such opinion of the competent authority would not be interfered by the Court. (See: The Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation v M. Prabhakar Rao1). 10. In the case at hand, the authorities considered all the aspects of the matter in its true perspective and even the appellate authority also on due appreciation of the facts rightly rejected the appeal as also the review filed by the petitioner. The orders impugned are just and proper warranting no interference of this Court. 11. Applying the well settled principles of law and for the reasons mentioned hereinabove, this Court is of the view that there is no illegality in the order impugned, hence the petition fails and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) Judge Gowri 1 2011 AIR SCW 4498 K GOWRI SANKARA RAO Digitally signed by K GOWRI SANKARA RAO Date: 2025.03.27 17:54:42 +0530