No Charge-Sheet, No Punishment: P&H HC Orders Retired Municipal Employee’s Suspension Periods Treated As Duty For Pension

The petitioner joined the Municipal Council, Gurdaspur, as an Octroi Clerk in 1984, later became a Junior Assistant and then an Inspector, and retired on 30.04.2020.

During his service, he was suspended on several occasions and reinstated, in some instances pending enquiry.

The petitioner maintained that no charge-sheet was issued and no punishment was imposed in relation to those periods.

The respondents nevertheless excluded the suspension periods when calculating his retiral benefits.

The petitioner challenged the order dated 07.01.2022 and sought recalculation of his pensionary benefits.

The Court considered Rule 7.3 of the Punjab Civil Services Rules, Volume I, Part I, as the provision relevant to regularising suspension periods.

It also relied on Punjab Government instructions dated 26.03.1990, which provide that where disciplinary proceedings are initiated for a major penalty but result only in a minor penalty, the suspension period is to be treated as duty, with full pay and allowances.

The Court further referred to Harinder Singh Chahal v. State of Punjab, 2024 NCPHHC 13650, which relied on Y.P. Sehgal v. State of Punjab, 1992(2) SCT 179; Dalip Singh v. State of Haryana, 2003(4) SCT 261; Dr. M.L. Kamra v. State of Haryana, 2009(4) SCT 27; and O.P. Sindhwani v. State of Haryana, 2009(4) SCT 62, for the principle that an employee awarded only a minor punishment is entitled to full pay and allowances for the suspension period.

The respondents had produced no material showing that a charge-sheet had been issued or that any punishment had been imposed in respect of the petitioner’s suspension periods.

The Court held that the respondents were required to consider regularisation under Rule 7.3 but had failed to do so; instead, they excluded the periods from qualifying service without justification.

Applying the stated principles on suspension and service benefits, the Court found that the exclusion could not be sustained.

The order dated 07.01.2022 was set aside to the extent that it excluded the suspension periods from qualifying service.

Respondent No. 4 was directed to treat those periods as duty periods and grant the petitioner consequential benefits, including pay and allowances.

Any resulting arrears were directed to be released within three months of receipt of a certified copy of the judgment.