- (1.) This special appeal is directed against an order by which, allowing the writ petition of the respondent, the learned single Judge directed the appellants to treat the period of respondent's absence on account of incarceration in a criminal case on duty and pay him full emoluments including consequential benefits of increments, seniority etc.
(2.) Brief facts of the case are that the respondent was appointed in the service of appellant Hindustan Zinc Ltd. as Helper some time in 1973. On 20.9.1984 he was arrested in connection with a criminal case registered at Dabok Police Station under Sections 302, 307 etc. of the Indian Penal Code. The trial Court convicted him under Section 307 of the Code and awarded sentence of 5 years rigorous imprisonment and fine on 23.8.1989. On appeal he was acquitted by this Court on 9.10.1990. On 26.10.1990, the respondent filed application to take him in employment. On 134.12.1990 he filed another application and on 24.12.1990 order was passed to that effect, and he was re- instated. On 14.8.1991, the respondent filed application for payment of arrears of salary etc. Therein he stated that he had never been placed under suspension or served with any kind of notice and hence he was entitled to salary etc. for the intervening period. After giving reminders which went in vain, the respondent filed the writ petition, SBCWP No. 2370/1992, seeking direction upon the respondents i.e. appellants herein to pay arrears of salary from 21.9.1984 till the date of his reinstatement.
(3.) Relying on the Standing Order, the learned Single Judge upheld the claim of the respondent with direction to the appellants to treat the entire period of absence in connection with the criminal case as on duty and pay him emoluments including consequential benefits as stated at the outset. The particular provision of the Standing Order mentioned as "Standing Order 21(A)(c)" in the order of the learned Single Judge does not find place in the Certified Standing Orders produced by the counsel for the parties at the time of hearing. The provision relevant to the case appears to be sub-clause (d) of Standing Order 21(4). However, to appreciate the true import of sub-clause (d), it would be appropriate to quote other parts also of Clause 4 of Standing Order 21, so far as relevant, as under :- "21. Procedure in dealing with cases of misconduct : ... ... ... ... 4. (a) Where a disciplinary proceeding against a workman is contemplated or is pending or where criminal proceedings against him in respect of any offence are under investigation or trial and the manager is satisfied that it is necessary or desirable to place the workman under suspension, he may by an order in writing suspend him with effect from such date as may be specified in the order. A statement setting out in detail the reasons for such suspensions shall be supplied to the workman within a week from the date of suspension. (b) A workman who is placed under suspensions under clause (a) shall, during the period of suspension, be paid a subsistence allowance at the following rates namely. (c) If on the conclusion of the enquiry or, as the case may be, of the criminal proceedings, the workman has been found guilty of the charges framed against him and it is considered that the imposition of any of the penalties prescribed in Standing Order 20A, above would meet the ends of justice, the manager shall pass an order accordingly : Provided that ... ... ... (d) If on the conclusion of the enquiry, or as the case may be, of the criminal proceedings, the workman has been found to be not guilty of any of the charges framed against him, he shall be deemed to have been on duty during the period of suspension and shall be entitled to the same wages as he would have received if he had not been placed under suspension, after deducting the subsistence allowance paid to him for such period. (e) ......";