GURPAL SINGH versus HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN

Citation: [2012] 11 S.C.R. 126 · Decided: 27-11-2012 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.S. NIJJAR · Disposal: Case Partly allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
[2012) 11 S.C.R. 126 
GURPAL SINGH 
v. 
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN 
(Writ Petition (Civil) No. 200 of 2006) 
NOVEMBER 27, 2012. 
[SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR AND H.L. GOKHALE, JJ.] 
Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951: 
c 
r. 54 -
Salary and allowances for the period under 
suspension - Judicial Officer faced criminal trial - Placed 
under suspension pending trial and appeal - Acquittal -
Suspension continued during departmental proceedings after 
dismissal of criminal appeal - Held: Suspension of petitioner 
0 
cannot be said to have been rendered wholly unjustified upon 
acquittal by trial court and during pendency of appeal before 
High Court - However, in view of findings of trial court and 
High Court, petitioner's continued suspension after decision 
in criminal appeal was wholly unjustified - Petitioner entitled 
E to full pay and allowances from the date of decision in criminal 
appeal - Charges in departmental proceedings having not 
been proved and petitioner having been exonerated and the 
period of suspension having been treated as period spent on 
duty, he is entitled to be considered for promotion notionally 
from the date when an officer junior to him was promoted and 
F allowed all consequential benefits accordingly, with 6% 
interest from the date of decision of criminal appeal - Service 
law - Judicial officer - Suspension - Costs. 
The petitioner, a Judicial Magistrate First Class in 
G Rajasthan, was arrested on 20.12.1985, pursuant to a 
complaint dated 11.12.1985 made by the wife of an 
advocate who was found dead on 24.11.1985. She 
alleged that her husband was asking the petitioner to 
refund the money which he had taken to get the former 
H 
126 
GURPAL SINGH v. HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE 
127 
FOR RAJASTHAN 
appointed as a member of Board of Revenue. By an order A 
dated 22.12.1985, the petitioner was suspended w.e.f. 
20.12.1985. The criminal trial, which had been transferred 
to Delhi, culminated in acquittal of the petitioner on 
1.5.2002. The appeal filed by CBI was also dismissed by 
the Delhi High Court on 27.9.2005. During the pendency 
B 
of the trial and the appeal, the petitioner remained under 
suspension for about 20 years. When the petitioner came 
to know that instead of revoking the suspension order, 
the High Court was proposing to initiate disciplinary 
proceedings against him, he filed the instant writ petition c 
for revocation of the order of suspension and for 
consequential benefits. In the Inquiry Report dated 
27 .2.2008, the petitioner was exonerated of the charges, 
and by order dated 26.3.2008, he was reinstated and was 
given posting on 12.5.2008. On 30.6.2008, he retired from 
0 
service on attaining the age of superannuation. 
On 24.1.2009, an order was issued by the High Court 
to the effect that the period of suspension of the 
petitioner would be treated on duty but without salary 
except subsistence allowances already paid to him and 
E 
he would not be entitled for any promotion. Consequent 
upon the direction of the Supreme Court to pass 
appropriate orders under Rule 54 of the Rajasthan 
Service Rules, 1951, the High Court passed the order 
dated 16.5.2011 stating that the period during which the 
F 
petitioner remained under suspension could not be said 
to be wholly unjustified under sub-r. (2) of r.54 and 
reiterated its earlier order dated 24.1.2009. 
Partly allowing the writ petition, the Court 
' 
HELD: 1.1. In order to determine the issue relating to 
the entitlement of the petitioner to the salary and other 
allowances upon reinstatement, the matter needs to be 
examined at the different stages/point of time. The first 
G 
H 
128 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2012] 11 S.C.R. 
A stage commenced at the time when the petitioner was 
initially suspended on 22.12.1985 w.e.f. 20.12.1985. The 
petitioner cannot legitimately protest against his 
suspension, at the initial stage, when he had remained 
in police custody for more than forty eight hours, though 
B unfortunately for circumstances for which he was not 
responsible. This suspension was naturally continued 
when he was facing the trial for murder.The next stage 
is when he was acquitted by the trial court on 1.5.2002. 
However, it cannot be said that as soon as the trial court 
c had acquitted the petitioner, the Rajasthan High Court 
was required to forthwith revoke the order of 
suspension. Undoubtedly, the petitioner could have been 
given a non-sensitive posting, not involving judicial 
functi

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.