Suspension Period Cannot Be Converted Into Leave Without Notice and Application of Mind; Mere Criminal Conviction Does Not Justify Adverse Service Consequences: Punjab & Haryana High Court Orders Release of Withheld Salary
Case Name: Ram Pal v. State of Haryana and Others
Date of Judgment: 16.10.2026
Citation: RSA-2161-2016
Bench: Justice Harkesh Manuja
Held: The Punjab and Haryana High Court held that mere conviction of a government employee does not automatically justify adverse service consequences, and the competent authority must independently examine the conduct leading to conviction and the relevant circumstances before determining the treatment of the suspension period. Interpreting Rule 7.3(5) of the applicable Civil Services Rules, the Court held that where an authority proposes to convert the suspension period into leave of the kind due, the employee must be informed of the reasons and afforded a reasonable opportunity to object. Such conversion, without notice or application of mind, particularly when no leave is available to the employee’s credit, violates the principles of natural justice.
Summary: The appellant, a government employee in Haryana’s Animal Husbandry Department, sought recovery of ₹1,40,000 representing 50% salary withheld during his suspension from 30.08.1995 to 30.07.1998. Although convicted in a criminal case, he was subsequently released on probation by the Sessions Court with a specific observation that such release would not affect his service career. Nevertheless, the department treated his suspension period as “leave of the kind due”, resulting in withholding of salary. Both the Trial Court and First Appellate Court rejected his claim.
The High Court observed that the departmental authority had neither independently examined the circumstances surrounding the conviction nor recorded reasons for converting the suspension period into leave. Referring to The Punjab State v. Shri Ram Asra and Baldev Singh v. State of Haryana, the Court reiterated that service consequences cannot follow mechanically from conviction and that procedural fairness must be observed while exercising powers under Rule 7.3.
Significantly, the Court distinguished the application of the “No Work, No Pay” principle, observing that the appellant had not been dismissed from service but had remained under suspension. His claim concerned salary withheld through an improper treatment of the suspension period. The Court also declined to follow the contrary view expressed by the Delhi High Court in Mohd. Anwar, noting that it was not binding on the Punjab and Haryana High Court.
Decision: The High Court allowed the Regular Second Appeal, setting aside the judgments and decrees of both courts below. The appellant was held entitled to the withheld 50% salary for the suspension period from 30.08.1995 to 30.07.1998, together with 9% annual interest from the date the amount became due until payment.