Rajpal vs State Of Haryana And Others
- Court
- Punjab and Haryana High Court
IN TH
112+212
Rajpal
State of Ha
CORAM: HON
Present:- Mr. K
for th
Mr. S
NIDHI GUPTA, J .
CM-7847-2026
This
HE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AN
D HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CWP
Date of De
P-32205-2025 (O&M)
ecision:- 04.11.2026
… Petitioner
Versus
aryana and others
... Respondents
N'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA
A
Keshav Gupta, Advocate
he Petitioner.
Suneel Ranga, DAG, Haryana.
application has been filed und
der Order 1 Rule 10 read with
h
order VI Rule 17
7 of the Code of Civil Procedu
ure, 1908 as applicable to writ
t
proceedings for s
substitution/correction of the de
escription of respondent No.4 in
n
the cause title.
Ld. C
Counsel for the applicant/petiti
oner submits that he does not
t
want to press th
e present application and the s
same may be dismissed as not
t
pressed.
Orde
ered accordingly.
NEELAM KUMARI
2026.11.05 16:58
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CWP-32205-2025
Main Case
5 (O&M) - 2 -
Prese
ent Civil Writ Petition under Art
ticles 226 of the Constitution of
f
India has been f
iled by the petitioner for issua
ance of a writ in the nature of
f
certiorari or man
ndamus or any other appropri
ate writ order of direction for
r
quashing the imp
pugned order dated 21.04.2025
(Annexure P-8) to the extent of
f
denial of full ben
nefits of back salary of ACP sca
ales and leave encashment and
issue a writ of ma
andamus directing the responde
ents to grant actual ACP arrears
s
st
(1 from 01.08.20
nd rd
005, 2 from 04.03.2014, 3 fro
om 01.08.2019) and full entitled
leave encashmen
nt with interest at the rate o
f 18% interest per annum on
n
delayed benefits f
from due dates.
2. Brief facts o
of the case in chronological sequ
uence are as under:-
19.01.1990: The
petitioner was appointed as Co
onductor in Haryana Roadways
s
and posted at Am
mbala.
28.01.2002: For h
is absence from 16.12.2001 to 3
31.01.2002 on medical grounds,
,
supported by cert
tificates of PGIMER, Chandigarh
, petitioner was charge-sheeted
d
on 28.01.2002 be
efore the period of absence had
even ended.
14.08.2002: In de
epartmental enquiry, the charg
ge was found not proved, and
d
petitioner was e
exonerated taking note of the
fact that petitioner had duly
y
submitted Medic
al Certificate issued by the PGIM
MER Chandigarh. This finding is
s
recorded in the d
ismissal order itself.
NEELAM KUMARI
2026.11.05 16:58
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CWP-32205-2025
14.1.2004 : How
5 (O&M) - 3 -
ever, in an improper manne
er, without reference to the
e
petitioner, the re
espondent-Office sent the Medi
cal Certificate of the petitioner
r
to the PGIMER Ch
handigarh, for verification.
02.03.2004: While
e relying on a PGIMER letter da
ted 02.03.2004 obtained at the
e
back of the peti
tioner and without reference
to the petitioner, the General
l
Manager disagree
ed with the Enquiry Officer and
proposed dismissal.
16.04.2004: The D
Department itself lodged FIR No
o. 105 dated 16.04.2004, under
r
Sections 193, 42
20, 467, 468, 471, 472, 473 of
f the Indian Penal Code, 1860,
,
against the petitio
oner at Police State Baldev Naga
ar, on the same allegation.
31.05.2004: There
eafter, period of absence was d
directed to be treated as wilful
l
absence, and pet
itioner was dismissed from Serv
vice vide order dated 31.05.2004
4
(Annexure P-1), p
passed by General Manager, Hary
yana Roadways, Ambala.
01.08.2005: First
ACP fell due and was granted
d from this date, however, only
y
notionally, by the
e impugned order.
27.04.2011: The
petitioner was acquitted by
the Chief Judicial Magistrate,
,
Ambala. The Dep
partment, as complainant, did
not appear in the witness box,
,
and the medical
certificate was not proved to b
be fake, as wrongly recorded by
y
the Respondent N
No. 3 in dismissal order dated 31
1.05.2004 (Annexure P-1).
18.06.2011 : How
wever, the said order of acqu
ittal was not received by the
e
petitioner till 29.
11.2014. In the meantime, in a
a Labour Court reference raised
d
by the petitioner
against his dismissal order date
ed 31.05.2014, the Labour Court
t
upheld the dismis
ssal vide Award dated 18.6.2011
1.
NEELAM KUMARI
2026.11.05 16:58
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CWP-32205-2025
4.3.2013 : Against
5 (O&M) - 4 -
t the abovesaid Award, petitione
er had approached this Court by
y
way of CWP No
o. 4763 of 2013. However, t
the said CWP-4763-2013, was
s
dismissed by this
Court vide order dated 4.3.2013
3.
04.03.2014 : Seco
nd ACP fell due in the scale of R
Rs. 5200-20200 and was granted
d
from this date, no
otionally, by the impugned order
r.
29.11.2014: The p
petitioner received the order of a
acquittal on 29.11.2014.
17.12.2014: Upo
n receipt of order of acquittal,
petitioner filed representation
n
seeking reinstate
ment.
11.04.2016: Res
pondents decided to re-examin
ne the matter and referred the
e
same to PGIMER
seeking verification of Medical C
Certificate.
11.7.2016 : Vide
report dated 11.7.2016, PGIM
MER reported that it was very
y
difficult to identif
fy the signatures on the certifica
tes.
8.9.2016/27.4.20
017 : Yet, the representation
was nonetheless rejected on
n
08.09.2016; and t
the appeal on 27.04.2017.
01.08.2019 : Third
d ACP fell due and was granted f
rom this date, notionally, by the
e
impugned order.
11.10.2022 : The
said orders dated 8.9.2016 and
d 27.4.2017 were challenged by
y
the petitioner be
efore this Court by way of CWP
No. 23191 of 2017; which was
s
allowed vide ord
der dated 11.10.2022 (Annexu
ure P-2) and the orders dated
d
08.09.2016 and
27.04.2017 were set aside, ho
olding that the overkill of the
e
Department had
boomeranged on it and that nat
tural justice was violated - and it
t
was directed fres
sh orders be passed according
due benefit of acquittal to the
e
petitioner.
NEELAM KUMARI
2026.11.05 16:58
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CWP-32205-2025
31.05.2023: The
5 (O&M) - 5 -
petitioner attained superannua
ation while still out of service.
.
Leave encashmen
nt and other retiral dues fell due
on this date.
04.12.2023: In Ra
am Lal v. State of Rajasthan (
(2024) 1 SCC 175 , the Hon'ble
e
Supreme Court d
irected reinstatement with all c
consequential benefits including
g
seniority, notiona
al promotions and fitment of s
alary, and awarded 50% of the
e
back wages.
05.01.2024: The S
State's LPA No. 31 of 2024 again
nst the order dated 11.10.2022,
,
was disposed of
on 05.01.2024 (Annexure P-3)
with a direction to pass fresh
h
orders taking jud
dgment of Ram Lal (supra) into
o consideration. No percentage
e
was fixed, and the
e State was later advised that th
he case was not fit for an SLP.
22.08.2024: Resp
pondent No. 3, by an order sign
ed on 13.08.2024 (Anenxure P-
-
5), held that the
medical certificate could not b
be treated as fake and that the
e
charge of wilful a
absence also stood not proved.
No order was made on pay for
r
the intervening p
eriod or on its treatment as duty
y.
19.09.2024: Vide
order dated 19.9.2024 (Annexu
ure R-1), the General Manager,
,
Haryana Roadway
ys, Ambala, withdrew the dismis
ssal, retired the petitioner w.e.f.
.
31.05.2023 and,
on the sole footing of Ram La
al supra, restricted pay for the
e
period out of ser
rvice to 50%, without notice of
the quantum. Despite the fact
t
that the Assistan
t District Attorney had advised
that consequential benefits be
e
extended to the p
petitioner.
10.10.2024: Ther
reafter, vide order dated 10.1
0.2024 (Annexure P-6), it was
s
directed that pay
y for 01.06.2004 to 31.05.202
3 be fixed at basic pay of Rs.
.
38,300/- on 01.07
7.2022, with 50% of the arrears
said to be payable under orders
s
NEELAM KUMARI
2026.11.05 16:58
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CWP-32205-2025
of the Court. How
5 (O&M) - 6 -
wever, there is no direction of
any Court for payment of 50%
%
arrears.
05.11.2024: The
e petitioner represented for
ACP and promotion before
e
submission of his
pension case on 05.11.2024 (An
nnexure P-7).
21.04.2025: Vide
e order dated 21.4.2025 (Anne
exure P-8), all three ACP were
e
granted notionall
ly from their due dates; and the
e pay was refixed at Rs. 48,800
0
on 01.07.2022, b
ut arrears were denied outright
t, without a reason. The order is
s
silent on leave en
ncashment.
Henc
ce, present writ petition.
2. It is
inter alia submitted by ld. coun
nsel for the petitioner that vide
e
order dated 19.0
09.2024 (Annexure R-1) passed
by the respondents, petitioner
r
had been granted
d 50% back wages. As such, pe
etitioner is also entitled to 50%
%
ACP benefits and
d 50% leave encashment. Whe
ereas vide the impugned order
r
dated 21.04.2025
5 (Annexure P-8), petitioner has
s only been given notional ACP
P
scale and has bee
en denied leave encashment.
3. It is
submitted that once the respo
ondents have granted 50% back
k
wages, there is no
o reason whatsoever to deny 50
0% of the ACP benefits and 50%
%
of the leave enca
ashment to the petitioner. Accor
rdingly prays that the impugned
d
order dated 21.04
4.2025 (Annexure P-8) be set asi
ide.
4. Per
contra , ld. State counsel has
s opposed contentions of the
e
petitioner and h
as submitted that the petition
ner is not entitled to claim full
l
monetary benefi
ts merely because the dismiss
sal order was subsequently set
t
aside. It is argue
ed that the setting aside of d
dismissal and grant of notional
l
NEELAM KUMARI
2026.11.05 16:58
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CWP-32205-2025
reinstatement do
5 (O&M) - 7 -
o not, by themselves, create an a
automatic right to actual arrears
s
of pay, ACP, and le
eave encashment.
5. It is
further submitted that the disc
ciplinary action was initiated on
n
account of unaut
horized absence and the Medic
al Certificate relied upon by the
e
petitioner were d
duly subjected to verification. Th
he petitioner cannot ignore the
e
effect of his ser
rvice record, the departmenta
l proceedings and the limited
d
nature of the relie
ef already granted in his favour.
6. More
eover, the impugned order
has been passed by the
e
respondents stric
ctly in compliance with the o
orders passed by the Hon'ble
e
Division Bench af
fter affording due opportunity o
of hearing to the petitioner and
d
after considering
g his entire service record. As s
such, the impugned order does
s
not suffer from a
any arbitrariness, perversity or
illegality. Accordingly, prays for
r
dismissal of petiti
ion.
7. No o
other argument is made on be
ehalf of the ld. counsel for the
e
parties. I have h
eard the ld. counsel and perus
sed the case file and record in
n
detail. I find merit
t in the submissions advanced o
on behalf of the petitioner.
8. Peru
sal of the record of the case
shows that chargesheet dated
d
28.01.2002 had b
been issued against the petition
ner on account of unauthorized
d
absence from du
uty for the period from 16.12
.2001 to 31.01.2002 i.e. for a
a
period of 45 day
s. To explain his absence from
duty, petitioner had submitted
d
two medical cer
rtificates issued by the PGIM
MER, Chandigarh showing that
t
petitioner could
not have attended duty on ac
ccount of his back problem. In
n
departmental en
nquiry, petitioner was exonerat
ted vide Enquiry Report dated
d
NEELAM KUMARI
2026.11.05 16:58
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CWP-32205-2025
14.8.2002. Howe
5 (O&M) - 8 -
ever, thereafter, the General
Manager, Haryana Roadways,
,
Ambala took it u
pon himself to enquire into the
e medical certificates submitted
d
by the petitioner;
; and ostensibly on the basis of
a letter received from PGIMER,
,
proceeded to
dismiss the petitioner from
m Service vide order dated
d
31.05.2004. The D
Department even lodged FIR No
o. 105 dated 16.04.2004, under
r
Sections 193, 42
20, 467, 468, 471, 472, 473 of
f the Indian Penal Code, 1860,
against the petiti
oner at Police State Baldev Nag
ar, on the same allegations that
t
petitioner had su
bmitted fake certificates.
9. Upon
n trial, petitioner stands acq
quitted by the Chief Judicial
l
Magistrate, Amba
ala vide judgment dated 27.4.20
011. It is imperative to note that
t
the complainant-
-Department did not even appe
ear in the witness box, and the
e
medical certificat
te was not proved to be fake
e, as wrongly recorded by the
e
Respondent No. 3
3 in dismissal order dated 31.05
.2004 (Annexure P-1). Thus, the
e
complainant-Dep
partment itself was not convince
d regarding its own case.
10. The
petitioner retired upon attain
ing age of superannuation on
n
31.5.2023. Howev
ver, although petitioner has bee
en granted 50% back wages, no
o
reason has been
given by the respondents as
to why ACP benefit and leave
e
encashment is n
not to be granted to the pe
etitioner in view of his initial
l
exoneration in th
e inquiry proceedings and also
subsequent acquittal in the FIR.
.
The impugned or
der is a non-speaking order. It is
established position in law that
t
right to receive re
etiral benefits is akin to right to p
property.
11. In th
he facts of the present case, it
would be apposite to refer to
o
judgment of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mah
haran Pratap Singh v. State of
f
NEELAM KUMARI
2026.11.05 16:58
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CWP-32205-2025
Bihar, (SC): Law F
5 (O&M) - 9 -
Finder Doc Id # 2722616 2025 S
SCC Online SC 890 . The relevant
t
paras are reprodu
uced as under:-
“Acquittal in criminal proceed
dings based on identical charges
s
and evidence should ren
nder disciplinary proceedings
s
unsustainable.
XXX XXX XXX
47. While an acquittal in
n a criminal case does not
t
automatically entitle the accu
used to have an order of setting
g
aside of his dismissal fro
om public service following
g
disciplinary proceedings, it is
well-established that when the
e
charges, evidence, witnesses,
and circumstances in both the
e
departmental inquiry and t
the criminal proceedings are
e
identical or substantially sim
milar, the situation assumes a
a
different context. In such case
es, upholding the findings in the
e
disciplinary proceedings wo
ould be unjust, unfair, and
d
oppressive. This is a position
settled by the decision in G. M.
Tank (supra), since reinforced
by a decision of recent origin in
n
Ram Lal v. State of Rajasthan,
(2024) 1 SCC 175.
48. To assess the degree of s
similarity between the charges,
evidence, witnesses, and circu
umstances in the disciplinary and
d
criminal proceedings, it is
indeed crucial to review the
e
materials placed before the Co
ourt where such an issue arises.
However, we regret, absence
e of the departmental file has
s
disabled us from looking into t
the same.
49. Notwithstanding the ab
bove, a plain reading of the
e
materials available on record
only reveals that charge no.1 in
n
the disciplinary closely rese
embled the allegations in the
e
criminal proceedings. In fac
t, the disciplinary proceedings
s
were initiated based on th
he written complaint of the
e
informant.
NEELAM KUMARI
2026.11.05 16:58
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CWP-32205-2025 (O&M) - 10 -
50. The judgment acquitting
the appellant reveals that the
e
prosecution "miserably faile
ed to prove its case beyond
d
reasonable doubt" as both th
he informant and PW-2 refused
d
to identify the appellant in
court. This discussion confirms
s
that the appellant's acquit
tal was based not on mere
e
technicalities. In Ram Lal (sup
pra), this Court held that terms
s
like benefit of doubt" or "hono
ourably acquitted" should not be
e
treated as formalities. The C
Court's duty is to focus on the
e
substance of the judgment, ra
ther than the terminology used.
51. That apart, it is notewort
thy that in course of the inquiry
y
PW-2 had also declined to ide
ntify the appellant during cross-
-
examination, and the informa
ant was not called as a witness
s
in the disciplinary proceedings
s. This sort of creates a parallel
l
between the circumstances
s in both the criminal and
d
disciplinary proceedings.
52. Besides, the appellant's
case is strengthened by the
e
principle of adverse inference
e. It can be reasonably inferred
d
that the respondents delibera
ately withheld the scanned copy
y
of the departmental file, whic
ch was essential for us to assess
s
whether the charges, witnesse
es, evidence, and circumstances
s
in both the criminal and de
epartmental proceedings were
e
substantially similar or identi
ical, likely due to concerns over
r
the potential adverse consequ
uences.
53. In light of the precedin
ng discussion and the adverse
e
presumption that is available
to be drawn, we hold that the
e
finding of the appellant being
guilty of charge no.1 cannot be
e
sustained following his acquit
ttal in the criminal proceedings,
which seem to have involved s
substantially similar or identical
l
charges, evidence, witnesses,
and circumstances.”
NEELAM KUMARI
2026.11.05 16:58
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CWP-32205-2025
12. In vi
5 (O&M) - 11 -
iew of the above, the present
t writ petition is allowed . The
e
impugned order
dated 21.04.2025 (Annexure
P-8) is hereby quashed. It is
s
directed that the
e petitioner is entitled to 50%
of his ACP benefits with effect
t
from the date du
ue; as also 50% of the leave en
ncashment with effect from the
e
date due. The ar
rrears be paid to the petitione
r within 8 weeks from date of
f
receipt of certifie
ed copy of this order. Failing wh
hich, petitioner shall be entitled
d
to interest @ 6%
p.a.
13. Pend
ding application(s), if any, also st
ands disposed of.
04.11.2026
Neelam
( N
NIDHI GUPTA )
JUDGE
Wheth
Wheth
her speaking /reasoned Yes / N
her Reportable Yes / N
No
No
NEELAM KUMARI
2026.11.05 16:58
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document