Pious duty of State, courts to protect honest, dedicated public servants from disgruntled people: Punjab and Haryana High Court

Saurabh Malik

Chandigarh, October 31

Emphasising the importance of safeguarding the interests of public servants and protecting them from false, fabricated, and vexatious complaints, the Punjab and Haryana High Court made it clear that it is the “pious duty” of both the State and the judicial system to protect those discharging their duties honestly and diligently.

Justice Jagmohan Bansal also underlines the detrimental impact of such complaints on government employees diligently serving the public. The judgment acknowledged that it had become increasingly common and convenient for disgruntled individuals to file baseless complaints against public servants.

Despite exoneration from both criminal prosecution and departmental proceedings, these employees often faced the loss of their salaries, which was crucial for their sustenance.

“If despite exoneration from prosecution as well as departmental proceedings, the employees are deprived of salary which is their source of livelihood, it would be travesty of justice, encourage disgruntled people and demoralise government servants, who are honestly working for the public. It is pious duty of the State as well as the courts to protect from such disgruntled people, public servants who are discharging their duties in an honest and dedicated manner,” Justice Bansal asserted.

The judgment is significant as it serves as a crucial precedent in matters involving false and malicious complaints against public servants and underscores the importance of upholding justice and integrity within the public service sector.

The ruling came in a case where the petitioner-employee was seeking the setting aside of order dated April 6, 2015, whereby his claim regarding salary for the suspension period from April 27, 2010, to April 30, 2014, was declined after treating the suspension period as ‘not on duty’. The Bench, during the course of hearing, was also told that the petitioner was further denied the benefit of pension.

Justice Bansal observed the services of the petitioner, a bank employee, were placed under suspension following his arrest in a corruption case. The respondent, however, did not initiate an inquiry against the petitioner despite the expiry of three months.

Referring to the impugned order dated April 6, 2015, Justice Bansal observed the sole ground of rejection of the petitioner’s claim for full wages was that he was absent from duty. In the absence of departmental proceedings and dropping of criminal trial, the respondent-bank was not justified to reject the claim.

A regulation specifically permitted full pay in case of exoneration or holding of suspension unjustified. “The petitioner was not subjected to inquiry and he stands exonerated from criminal trial. Thus, he was entitled to full pay and could not be held absent from duty when he was ready and willing to work,” Justice Bansal added.