Dismissed Haryana Roadways Conductor To Get 50% ACP Arrears And 50% Leave Encashment After Exoneration, Acquittal: P&H HC

In brief

The question

Whether, having granted the petitioner 50% back wages, the respondents could deny arrears of 50% of his ACP benefits without giving reasons.

The court held

The Court allowed the writ petition and quashed the order dated 21 April 2025.

It also directed

It directed the respondents to pay the petitioner 50% of his ACP benefits from the respective due dates and 50% of his leave encashment, within eight weeks of receiving a certified copy of the judgment.

If payment was not made within that period, the petitioner would be entitled to interest at 6% per annum.

01Facts

Rajpal, a Haryana Roadways Conductor, was dismissed in 2004 following allegations concerning his medical certificates and absence from duty.

pp. 2–6

He had been exonerated in the departmental enquiry, and was later acquitted in the criminal case arising from the same allegations.

pp. 2–6

After setting aside earlier orders concerning his claim for reinstatement, the High Court directed the authorities to reconsider the matter.

pp. 2–6

The respondents withdrew the dismissal, treated him as retired from 31 May 2023, and granted 50% back wages for the intervening period.

pp. 2–6

They later granted the three ACP benefits notionally from their respective due dates and refixed his pay, but denied arrears and did not decide his claim for leave encashment.

pp. 2–6

The petitioner challenged that decision, seeking 50% of the ACP benefits and leave encashment.

p. 6

02Issues

i.Whether, having granted the petitioner 50% back wages, the respondents could deny arrears of 50% of his ACP benefits without giving reasons.

p. 6

ii.Whether the petitioner was entitled to 50% of his leave encashment, where the impugned order did not address that benefit.

p. 6, 8

03Law Applied

The Court relied on the principle that the right to receive retiral benefits is akin to a right to property.

p. 8

It also referred to Maharana Pratap Singh v. State of Bihar, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 890, which states that where charges, evidence, witnesses and circumstances in departmental and criminal proceedings are identical or substantially similar, sustaining disciplinary findings after an acquittal may be unjust; the substance of the acquittal, rather than labels such as “benefit of doubt,” must be considered.

pp. 8–10

The judgment also referred to Ram Lal v. State of Rajasthan, (2024) 1 SCC 175, in discussing the effect of acquittal in proceedings involving substantially similar allegations.

p. 9

Provisions in the judgment · 7 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Indian Penal Code, 1860 Section 193 Section 420 Section 467 Section 468 Section 471 Section 472 Section 473

04Reasoning

The Court noted that the petitioner had been exonerated in the departmental enquiry and acquitted in the criminal case, and that the respondents had subsequently withdrawn his dismissal and granted him 50% back wages.

pp. 7–8

Against that background, the impugned order granted ACP benefits only notionally, denied arrears without reasons, and was silent on leave encashment.

p. 8

The Court held that the denial was unsupported by a reasoned decision, particularly in light of the petitioner’s exoneration, acquittal and the property-related nature of retiral benefits.

p. 8