The Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that a government employee dismissed, removed, compulsorily retired or suspended, but later reinstated, is entitled to full pay and allowances. Justice Namit Kumar held that the period between dismissal and retirement cannot be treated as leave without pay, once an appellate authority sets aside the employee's dismissal.

The assertion came as Justice Kumar quashed Punjab State Warehousing Corporation’s order treating the period between the petitioner-employee’s dismissal and retirement as "leave without pay" before directing the release of all consequential payments within three months.

The petitioner had challenged the appellate authority's order dated August 16, 2012, to the extent that "the period from April 18, 2006, the date of dismissal, till April 30, 2009, the date of his retirement, was ordered to be treated as “leave without pay", despite the appellate authority having modified the punishment of dismissal.

Departmental proceedings and appeal

Justice Kumar noted that departmental proceedings had been initiated against the employee for unauthorised absence from duty from September 22, 2004, to August 21, 2005, culminating in his dismissal from service by order dated April 17, 2006.  

After filing a statutory appeal on May 16, 2006, and several reminders, the petitioner approached the High Court through an earlier writ petition when no decision was taken. The High Court, on October 20, 2011, directed the appellate authority to decide the appeal within two months.  

In compliance, the appellate authority heard the appeal on multiple dates and recorded that the employee had personally appeared and stated "that he was injured by a bullet during the relevant period, and had been admitted in a hospital for treatment. The appellant produced evidence also in this regard."

Taking note that his date of birth was April 15, 1951, and that he was due to retire on April 30, 2009, the appellate authority ordered: "The appeal submitted by him is hereby accepted. The period from the date of dismissal from service of Corporation till the date of retirement, i.e. up to April 30, 2009, for which he remained out of employment, is hereby directed to be treated as leave without pay."  

Corporation's stand

In its written statement, the Corporation contended that the petitioner had been charge-sheeted for unauthorised absence, had initially participated in the departmental inquiry but later failed to appear, resulting in ex-parte proceedings. The inquiry officer found him guilty of remaining absent and the disciplinary authority dismissed him from service.  

The respondents further asserted that although the appellate authority had set aside the dismissal and ordered that the petitioner be treated as having retired on April 30, 2009, retirement benefits had already been released and the writ petition had been filed after almost four years. They also argued that "the petitioner could not claim any benefit for the period as he did not work."  

Before the High Court, the petitioner argued that once the dismissal order had been set aside, he became entitled to "full pay and allowances for the period from April 18, 2006, to April 30, 2009," and that the period could not be treated as leave without pay under Rule 7.3 of the Punjab Civil Services Rules, Volume I.

Rule 7.3 interpreted

Examining Rule 7.3 of the Punjab Civil Services Rules, Volume I, Justice Kumar observed that "a government employee, who has been dismissed, removed, compulsorily retired or suspended, is re-instated upon having been fully exonerated, then he shall be given full pay and allowances to which he would have been entitled to, had he not been dismissed, removed, compulsorily retired or suspended, as the case may be."  

Justice Kumar concluded: "Since the appeal filed by the petitioner against the order of dismissal was allowed by the Appellate Authority... the order of dismissal stood set aside by necessary implication. Consequently, the petitioner cannot be denied the benefit of pay and allowances for the intervening period commencing from the date of his dismissal till the date of his retirement.”

Allowing the writ petition, the High Court held the petitioner entitled to the pay and allowances for the period. “Let the necessary payments be released to the petitioner within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order,” the court concluded.