C.S. Virk Vs Punjab State Ware Housing Corporation & Anr.

The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 16.08.2012 (Annexure P-11), passed by the Appellate Authority, whereby, while modifying the punishment of dismissal, it was ordered that the period from the date of dismissal, i.e., 18.04.2006, till the date of his retirement, i.e., 30.04.2009, shall be treated as leave without pay.

¶13

Briefly stated, the facts as have been pleaded in the present petition, are that the departmental proceedings were initiated against the petitioner on account of his unauthorised absence from duty from 22.09.2004 to 21.08.2005. Upon conclusion of the inquiry, the petitioner was dismissed from service, vide order dated 17.04.2006 (Annexure P-4). Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred a statutory appeal before the Appellate Authority dated 16.05.2006 (Annexure P- 5), followed by reminders dated 06.09.2006, 28.03.2011 and 12.08.2011 (Annexures P-6 to P-8, respectively). When no action on VINAY the appeal was taken by the Appellate Authority, the petitioner 2026.07.27 12:00 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment

¶14

-2-

¶15

CWP-4862-2016

¶16

approached this Court by filing CWP No.19804 of 2011, titled as 'C.S. Virk v. Punjab State Warehousing Corporation and another', which was disposed of, vide order dated 20.10.2011 (Annexure P-10), with a direction to the Appellate Authority to decide the statutory appeal of the petitioner within a period of two months. In compliance with the said directions, the Appellate Authority considered the appeal of the petitioner and passed the impugned order dated 16.08.2012, holding as under:-

¶17

The appeal submitted by Sh. C.S. Virk, Ex. G.A. was heard by the Appellate Authority which comprises the Members as Chairman Punjab State Warehousing Corporation, Director Food and Supply Department Punjab and Joint Director (F.D.A.) as representation of Finance Department Punjab, on dated 7.5.12, 17.5.12, 25.6.12, 06.7.12, dated 20.7.12. During hearing of the appeal, Sh. C.S. Virk appeared personally and gave his statement in his defence, and stated that he was injured by a bullet during the relevant period, and had been admitted in a hospital for treatment. The Appellant produced evidence also in this regard. As per records, the date of birth of appellant is 15.4.1951, according to which he was required to be retired from the service of the Corporation on 30.4.09 on attaining the age of 58 years. After hearing the arguments of the appellant and on perusal of the records produced by him, the appeal submitted by him is hereby accepted. The period from the date of dismissal from service of Corporation till the date of retirement, i.e. up to 30.4.09, for which he remained out of employment, is hereby directed to be treated as leave without pay. xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx”

¶18

The petitioner is aggrieved by that part of the order passed by the Appellate Authority, whereby the period from the date of his dismissal, i.e., 18.04.2006, till the date of his retirement, i.e., 30.04.2009, has been directed to be treated as leave without pay.

¶19

Written statement on behalf of respondents No.1 to 3 has

¶20

been filed, wherein it has been stated as under:-

¶21

VINAY 2026.07.27 12:00 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment

¶22

CWP-4862-2016

¶23

-3-

¶24

“xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx

¶25

2. That the factual background is that the petitioner was an employee of PSWC. He was issued a charge sheet dated 21.2.2005 on the ground of his unauthorized absence since 22.9.2004. In pursuance to the said charge sheet an enquiry officer was appointed. The petitioner appeared before the Enquiry Officer and pleaded not guilty. Subsequently when evidence was being led on behalf of the Department, the petitioner did not appear in the enquiry proceedings and was proceeded ex-parte. Sh. T.R. Bansal, the Enquiry Officer held that the petitioner was guilty of charges of having remained absent from 22.4.2004 to 21.8.2005. The matter was then taken by the punishing authority who vide order dated 17.4.2006 dismissed the petitioner from service. A copy of the said order of dismissal is already on record as Annexure P-4. Thereafter the petitioner filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority. The appeal was ultimately decided vide Annexure P-11 and was accepted to the extent that the dismissal order set aside and the petitioner was ordered to have retired on 30.4.2009 on attaining the age of 58 years. The period from date of dismissal till the date of retirement was to be treated as to leave of the kind due. In pursuance thereto retiral benefits have already been paid to the petitioner. It is now that after lapse of almost 4 years that the petitioner has filed the present writ petition. Therefore, it is submitted that the present writ petition is liable to be dismissed. Even otherwise the petitioner cannot claim any benefit for the said period as he did not work.

¶26

xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx”

¶27

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that once the

¶28

order of dismissal has been set aside by the Appellate Authority, the petitioner is entitled for full pay and allowances for the period from 18.04.2006 to 30.04.2009 and the said period cannot be treated as leave without pay in terms of Rule 7.3 of the Punjab Civil Services Rules, Vol. I.

¶29

Per contra , learned senior counsel for the respondents submits that while considering the appeal of the petitioner, lenient view has been taken and the period from 18.04.2006 to 30.04.2009 was treated as leave without pay, as during the said period the petitioner did

¶30

VINAY 2026.07.27 12:00 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment

¶31

-4-

¶32

CWP-4862-2016

¶33

not perform any duty.

¶34

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the

¶35

record.

¶36

Rule 7.3 of the Punjab Civil Services Rules, Vol. I, reads

¶37

as under:-

¶38

“7.3. (1) When a Government employee, who has been dismissed, removed or compulsorily retired, is reinstated as a result of appeal, revision or review, or would have been so reinstated but for his retirement on superannuation while under suspension or not, the authority competent to order re-instatement shall consider and make a specific order–

¶39

(a) regarding the pay and allowances to be paid to the Government employee for the period of his absence from duty including the period of suspension, preceding his dismissal, removal or compulsory retirement, as the case may be; and

¶40

(b) whether or not the said period shall be treated as a period spent on duty.

¶41

(2) Where the authority competent to order reinstatement is of opinion that the Government employee, who had been dismissed, removed or compulsorily retired, has been fully exonerated, the Government employee shall, subject to the provisions of sub-rule (6), be paid his full pay and allowances to which he would have been entitled, had he not been dismissed, removed or compulsorily retired or suspended, prior to such dismissal, removal or compulsory retirement, as the case may be:

¶42

Provided that where such authority is of opinion that the termination of the proceedings instituted against the Government employee had been delayed due to reasons directly attributable to the Government employee it may, after giving him an opportunity to make representation and after considering the representation, if any, submitted by him, direct, for reasons to be recorded in writing, that the Government employee shall, subject to the provisions of sub-rule (7), be paid for the period of such delay only such amount (not being the whole) of pay and allowances, as it may determine.

¶43

(3) In a case falling under sub-rule (2), the period of absence from duty including the period of suspension preceding dismissal, removal or compulsory retirement, as the case may be, shall be treated as a period spent on duty for all purposes.

¶44

VINAY 2026.07.27 12:00 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment

¶45

CWP-4862-2016

¶46

-5-

¶47

(4) In cases other than those covered by sub-rule (2) including cases where the order of dismissal, removal or compulsory retirement from service is set aside by the authority exercising powers of appeal, revision or review solely on the ground of noncompliance with the requirements of clause (2) of article 311 of the Constitution and no further inquiry is proposed to be held, the Government employee shall, subject to the provisions of sub-rules (6) and (7), be paid such amount (not being the whole) of pay and allowances to which he would have been entitled, had he not been dismissed, removed or compulsorily retired or suspended prior to such dismissal, removal or compulsory retirement, as the case may be, as the competent authority may determine, after giving notice to the Government employee of the quantum proposed and after considering the representation, if any, submitted by him in that connection within such period as may be specified in the notice:

¶48

Provided that any payment under this sub-rule to a Government employee other than a Government employee who is governed by the provisions of the payment of Wages Act, 1936 (Act 4 of 1936) shall be restricted to a period of three years immediately preceding the date on which order for re-instatement of such Government employee are passed by the authority exercising the powers of appeal, revision or review, or immediately preceding the date of retirement on superannuation of such Government employee, as the case may be.

¶49

xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx”

¶50

A bare reading of the above provision would make it clear

¶51

that a Government employee, who has been dismissed, removed, compulsorily retired or suspended, is re-instated upon having been fully exonerated, then he shall be given full pay and allowances to which he would have been entitled to, had he not been dismissed, removed, compulsorily retired or suspended, as the case may be.

¶52

This Court, while considering the similar issue in Braham

¶53

Parkash v. Haryana State through Collector, Gurgaon, District

¶54

Gurgaon and others : 2018(1) PLR 358 , has held as under:-

¶55

“A perusal of this Rule shows that Rule 7.3 (1) (a) deals with the general power which the appellate authority may exercise with regard to the entitlement of the employee for pay and allowances. Rule 7.3 (2) lays down

¶56

VINAY 2026.07.27 12:00 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment

¶57

CWP-4862-2016

¶58

-6-

¶59

that where the employee is fully exonerated he would be entitled to full salary and allowances for the period he remained out of service. Rule 7.3 deals with the other cases. As per the Rule 7.3 sub Rule 3 and the provisos, in a case where an order of dismissal is set aside in appeal the pay and allowances admissible to the employee can not be less than the subsistence allowance computed under Rule 7.2.”

¶60

To the similar effect is the judgment of this Court in CWP

¶61

No.8647 of 2015 titled as 'Harchand Singh v. State of Punjab and others', decided on 17.04.2017 .

¶62

The case of the petitioner is squarely covered by sub-rules (2) and (3) of the aforesaid Rule. Since the appeal filed by the petitioner against the order of dismissal was allowed by the Appellate Authority, vide order dated 16.08.2012, the order of dismissal stood set aside by necessary implication. Consequently, the petitioner cannot be denied the benefit of pay and allowances for the intervening period commencing from the date of his dismissal, i.e., 18.04.2006, till the date of his retirement, i.e., 30.04.2009.

¶63

Consequently, the present petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 16.08.2012 (Annexure P-11), to the extent it directs that the period from the date of dismissal, i.e. 18.04.2006, till the date of retirement of the petitioner, i.e., 30.04.2009, to be treated as leave without pay, is hereby set aside and the petitioner is held entitled for the pay and allowances for the said period. Let the necessary payments be released to the petitioner within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

¶64

22.07.2026 ( NAMIT KUMAR ) Vinay JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No

¶65

VINAY 2026.07.27 12:00 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment

C.S. Virk v. Punjab State Ware Housing Corporation & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

C.S. Virk v. Punjab State Ware Housing Corporation & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Harpreet Singh Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Mohan Lal Vs State of Punjab and Another

Asi Lr Ashwani Kumar and Others Vs State of Punjab and Others

Paramjit Singh Vs Punjab State Power Corporation Limited and Others

The Punjab State Agricultural Cooperative Societies Employees Union Punjab Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Davinder Pal Vs State of Punjab and Others