Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Denial of Back Wages and Non-Duty Treatment of Dismissal Period After Acquittal; Says Acquittal Was Not Honourable and Petitioner Himself Sought Leniency

Case Name: Satnam Singh vs. State of Punjab and Others
Date of Judgment: 03 December 2025
Citation: CWP-11489-2017
Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Jagmohan Bansal

Held: The Punjab & Haryana High Court dismissed a petition challenging the police department’s decision to treat the petitioner’s dismissal period (2009–2015) as non-duty and to deny back wages, holding that the petitioner’s acquittal was not honourable, that dismissal following conviction was mandatory under the Punjab Police Rules, and that the petitioner himself had sought reinstatement with an apology, thereby admitting misconduct.

Summary: The petitioner, a Constable recruited in 1989, was prosecuted under the Prevention of Corruption Act for allegedly accepting a bribe. He was convicted in 2008 and dismissed from service in 2009. In 2014, he was acquitted by the High Court on technical grounds arising from procedural lapses in investigation. Following acquittal, he represented to the police authorities requesting reinstatement and explicitly expressing remorse, asking to be pardoned and assuring that he would not repeat such an act.

He was reinstated in 2015 but his dismissal period was treated as non-duty and he was denied back wages. Before the High Court, he argued that treating the period as non-duty amounted to double jeopardy and that reinstatement should have restored his full service benefits. The State opposed the claim, submitting that Rule 16.2 of the Punjab Police Rules required dismissal upon conviction, and Rule 10.70 empowered the authorities to deny back wages on reinstatement after acquittal, particularly when the acquittal was not honourable.

The High Court found that the acquittal did not exonerate him on merits, that the petitioner had admitted misconduct in his own representation, and that he had not challenged his earlier reversion from Head Constable to Constable. The Court held that the department was fully competent to treat the dismissal period as non-duty and to deny back wages, and that no legal infirmity existed in the impugned order.

Decision: The writ petition was dismissed. The High Court affirmed the validity of treating the dismissal period as non-duty and upholding the denial of back wages.