C.G. Suri, J. - (1.) THIS revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, read with Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, is directed against the order of the Additional District Judge, Ambala affirming on appeal the order of the Authority, appointed under the Payment of Wages Act, 1936, (hereinafter briefly referred to as 'the Act') whereby a claim for recovery of deductions in wages, filed by Pritam Singh Respondent under Section 15(2), read with Section 7 of the Act, had been allowed. By the impugned orders, the Respondent who is an employee of the Northern Railways has been declared entitled to receive full salary for the period of suspension from 28th July, 1965 to 18th November, 1965.
(2.) THE Respondent was serving the Petitioner as Trains Clerk at Ambala. He had a fight with a colleague in the office and a criminal case under Sections 324 and 506, Indian Penal Code, and Section 120 of the Indian Railways Act had been instituted against him. The order of suspension from service had been passed during the pendency of that criminal case. The Respondent was convicted by the trial Magistrate under Section 324, Indian Penal Code, but on appeal had been released on probation of good conduct under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. Security for good behaviour furnished by him for the prescribed period has been duly complied with and discharged. Even though the Respondent had been reinstated before the final decision of the criminal case, he has been allowed to draw only the subsistence allowance during the period of suspension. The difference between this subsistence allowance and the full monthly emoluments which had been withheld from him was described by the Respondent to be 'a deduction' within the meaning of Section 7 and 15 of the Act and the Respondent had, therefore, filed a claim with the Authority under Section 15(2) of the Act. This claim has been allowed by the Authority and the order has been affirmed on appeal by the Additional District Judge, Ambala. The Authority had allowed a sum of Rs. 200 as compensation for the withholding of a part of the salary but this amount awarded as compensation has been reduced to a sum of Rs. 10 only by the Additional District Judge, Ambala.
(3.) SHRI Jain, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, argues that the difference in the monthly emoluments withheld from the Respondent during the period of suspension does not amount to any deduction within the meaning of Sections 7 and 15 of the Act as, during this period, the Respondent was not entitled to anything over and above the subsistence allowance. He relies in this connection on a Full Bench decision of this Court in Divisional Superintendent Northern Railway, Delhi Division v. Mukand Lai : A.I.R. 1957 P&H 130. It is not clear from this ruling whether the employee had been exonerated of all liability before he was reinstated. The suspension had lasted only for a period of about a fortnight and it can be that the shortage of stores detected in that case had been visited with the imposition of a mild penalty or the employer had accepted an expression of regrets by the employee and that there was not such a complete exoneration from liability so as to entitle the employee to full salary and emoluments during the period of suspension. On the peculiar facts of that particular case the finding may have appeared justified that the withholding of the difference between the subsistence allowance and the full salary did not amount to a deduction and that for the period of suspension, the employee was not entitled to anything over and above the subsistence allowance. The Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 was brought on the Statute Book after the decision in Mukand Lal's case and the Full Bench was not in a position to give any opinion as to how far the provisions of the said Act would have affected the legal position. I, therefore, agree with the learned Additional District Judge that the Full Bench decision in Mukand Lal' case is not helpful to us in determining the effect of Sections 4 and 12 of the Probation of Offenders Act on the present case. Shri Jain then relies on a Division Bench ruling of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Akella Satyanarayana Murthy v. Zonal Manager, Life Insurance Corporation of India, Madras : A.I.R. 1969 A.P. 371. A clear distinction was drawn in that case between dismissal of officials for their conduct and their dismissal on a conviction for criminal offence. If the dismissal proceeded a conviction for a criminal offence and the employee had been given the benefit of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, the order of dismissal was found to suffer from an infirmity, in view of the provisions of Section 12 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. This section runs as follows: 12. Removal of disqualification attaching to conviction. Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law, a person found guilty of an offence and dealt with under the provision of Section 3 or Section 4 shall not suffer disqualification, if any, attaching to a conviction of an offence under such law: Provided that nothing in this section shall apply to a person who, after his release under Section 4, is subsequently sentenced for the original offence.;