` CWP-16663-2025 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 112 CWP-16663-2025 Date of Decision: 05.09.2025 Tarsem Chand …Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others …Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAGMOHAN BANSAL Present: - Mr. Ravinder Singh, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. Aman Dhir, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab *** JAGMOHAN BANSAL, J. (Oral) 1. The petitioner through instant petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India is seeking directions to respondent to release his salary and consequential benefits including seniority. 2. The petitioner was implicated in FIR No.17 dated 06.10.2017, under Sections 7 and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, registered at Police Station, Vigilance Bureau Patiala Range, Patiala. He preferred CWP No.4591 of 2024 before this Court seeking reinstatement. The said petition was disposed of vide order dated 28.02.2024 passed by this Court. The operative portion of order dated 28.02.2024 reads as: - “From the perusal of impugned order, it is evident that appellate authority has not adverted with Rule 16.3 of 1934 Rules while passing said order. Rule 16.3 of 1934 Rules is directly applicable to every departmental proceedings as MOHIT KUMAR 2025.09.05 16:05 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. ` CWP-16663-2025 -2- soon as criminal proceedings are dropped. The competent authority is duty bound to ascertain applicability of Rule 16.3 of 1934 Rules in the departmental proceedings. As the appellate authority has failed to advert with Rule 16.3 of 1934 Rules while passing impugned orders, the impugned orders dated 23.11.2020 (Annexure P-3), 22.03.2021 (Annexure P-4) and 12.07.2022 (Annexure P-5) deserve to be set aside and accordingly set aside. The appellate authority is directed to pass a fresh order within three months from today.” 3. Pursuant to aforesaid order, the respondent passed order dated 14.05.2024 whereby petitioner was reinstated, however, period from dismissal to reinstatement was ordered to be treated as non-duty period. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is entitled to back wages as well as continuity of service. The respondent has reinstated him, however, denied the benefit of continuity of service as well as back wages. 5. On the asking of Court, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that grievance of the petitioner would be redressed if the period in question is counted in the service for all service benefits on notional basis. 6. The petitioner was subjected to punishment of dismissal from service on account of criminal proceedings. He was acquitted and reinstated in view of order dated 28.02.2024 passed by this Court in CWP No.4591 of 2024. The prayer of petitioner, made during the course of hearing, seems to be just and fair and accordingly, it is hereby held that period in question would be counted for all service benefits on notional basis. The petitioner shall not be entitled to salary for said period. MOHIT KUMAR 2025.09.05 16:05 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. ` CWP-16663-2025 -3- 7. In the backdrop, the petition stands disposed of in above terms. (JAGMOHAN BANSAL) JUDGE 05.09.2025 Mohit Kumar Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No MOHIT KUMAR 2025.09.05 16:05 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.