Wages Cannot be Withheld or Service Regularization Denied Solely Based on Pending Criminal Investigations

The applicant was appointed as an 'Orderly' in the Commissioner Enquiries, General Administrative Department (GAD) and was later deputed to the winter Secretariat in Jammu.

Despite performing his duties, his salary was withheld on the grounds that his character verification process was incomplete.

The respondents justified the withholding by citing the applicant's involvement in FIR No. 108/2010 (under Section 7/25 Arms Act) and an allegedly manipulated verification report.

Although the applicant was acquitted in the aforementioned FIR, the respondents subsequently cited a new investigation, FIR No. 34/2016 by the Crime Branch, as the reason for continued non-payment of salary.

The applicant approached the Court seeking the quashing of Government Order No. 1120 GAD of 2017 and a direction to release withheld salaries and regularize service.

1. Whether the respondents are legally justified in withholding the legitimately earned salary of an employee based on pending investigations, particularly after acquittal in the primary FIR.

2. Whether the continued withholding of salary and lack of regularization constitutes a violation of the applicant's fundamental rights.

The Court emphasized the principle that the right to receive salary for work performed is a legitimate right, and withholding it without due process may amount to sustained victimization and a violation of fundamental rights.

The court relied on the established legal doctrine that administrative actions must not be arbitrary and must adhere to the principles of natural justice, referencing the Apex Court’s standing directions against the indefinite withholding of salaries.

The Court examined the applicant's contention that he had completed his two-year probation period and had been acquitted of the criminal charges that originally triggered the adverse verification report.

While the respondents argued that a second, pending investigation in FIR No. 34/2016 justified the continued withholding of salary, the Court noted the applicant's willingness to seek a time-bound administrative remedy rather than a protracted judicial battle.

The Bench observed that the respondents cannot benefit from the labor of an employee while simultaneously denying them their "legitimately earned salary," as such an action has "harsh" effects on the individual and their family.

Consequently, the Court found it appropriate to direct the executive to reconsider the matter through a formal representation.

The respondents were ordered to treat the Transfer Application (T.A.) as a formal representation on behalf of the applicant and were directed to consider all averments and pass a "detailed and speaking order" in accordance with the law within eight weeks from the date of receipt of the order.

T.A. 2463/2021 and all connected M.A.s were thus disposed of.