4 min readNew DelhiUpdated: Mar 17, 2026 12:26 PM ISTNoting that the petitioner is not at fault for the administrative lapse in concluding the inquiry, the Punjab and Haryana High Court termed the authority’s action arbitrary. (Image generated using AI)Punjab and Haryana High Court news: Observing that denying salary is a grave injustice, particularly when the petitioner was exonerated in criminal proceedings and other inquiries, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has quashed an order denying full back wages to a municipal corporation clerk suspended for over a decade.Justice Harpreet Singh Brar ruled that denying salary to an employee in such circumstances amounts to an unlawful penalty. Justice Harpreet Singh Brar stated that any decision arrived at by any authority must be based on reasons.“Denial of salary for the said period, particularly when he stands exonerated in both the criminal proceedings and the departmental inquiries, would result in grave injustice,” the high court said on March 10.Also Read | Liberty yes, but one can’t subvert justice: Punjab and Haryana High Court denies bail to man in Rs 1.89 crore public funds ‘scam’The order added that such a course of action, without cogent justification, reflects arbitrariness and creates a reasonable apprehension that the inquiry process was pursued with a predetermined outcome, especially when the material on record consistently supported the petitioner.Noting that the petitioner is not at fault for the respondent corporation’s administrative lapse in concluding the inquiry after 10 years, the court said that such action is arbitrary and contrary to settled principles of natural justice and fairness in administrative decision-making, as it effectively penalises the petitioner despite no proven misconduct.25-year legal battleThe petitioner, Attar Singh, a clerk with the municipal corporation, was placed under suspension on December 6, 2000, following the registration of an FIR alleging he had tampered with official records in connivance with a contractor.Although a Ludhiana trial court acquitted him in October 2010, granting him the “benefit of doubt due to lack of evidence,” he was not reinstated until July 14, 2011.Despite his acquittal, Singh was subjected to three separate departmental inquiries in 2012, 2014, and 2016.Every single inquiry officer exonerated him, with the final 2016 report explicitly recommending that his suspension be treated as a “duty period” for all purposes.However, the commissioner of the municipal corporation issued an order in August 2016 treating the period as “duty” for service continuity but denying him any wages beyond the subsistence allowance already received.Appearing for the petitioner, advocate Karina Kalra submitted that the petitioner was not merely acquitted by the trial court on account of lack of evidence, but was also exonerated in three separate departmental inquiries, with the last inquiry report unequivocally recommending that the suspension period be treated as a duty period.Also Read | ‘Judicial anarchy’: Punjab and Haryana High Court slams accountant for ‘forum shopping’ tactic in Rs 11 lakh fraud case‘Decision must be based on reasons’It is incontrovertible that the departmental inquiry initiated in 2000 culminated for the first time only in the year 2012, resulting in exonerating the petitioner.The petitioner was thrice subjected to departmental inquiry in the years 2012, 2014, and 2016, and on each occasion the petitioner was exonerated by the inquiry officer.It is a trite law that any decision arrived at by any authority must be based on reasons.From the sequence of events, it appears that the respondent-corporation remained dissatisfied with the inquiry reports, which had consistently exonerated the petitioner.The record reveals that even after the first inquiry report exonerated the petitioner, dissatisfaction was recorded, and the matter was again entrusted to the additional commissioner for a fresh inquiry.The subsequent report also returned findings in favour of the petitioner and recommended that the period of suspension be treated as a duty period.Despite these consistent conclusions, the competent authority proceeded to pass the impugned order denying the petitioner salary for the suspension period, without recording any reasons for disagreeing with the inquiry reports.The petitioner was not only acquitted but was also exonerated in three departmental inquiries.Permitting such denial would amount to visiting the petitioner with adverse consequences for no fault of his own, which the law does not countenance.Jagriti Rai works with The Indian Express, where she writes from the vital intersection of law, gender, and society. Working on a dedicated legal desk, she focuses on translating complex legal frameworks into relatable narratives, exploring how the judiciary and legislative shifts empower and shape the consciousness of citizens in their daily lives. Expertise Socio-Legal Specialization: Jagriti brings a critical, human-centric perspective to modern social debates. Her work focuses on how legal developments impact gender rights, marginalized communities, and individual liberties. Diverse Editorial Background: With over 4 years of experience in digital and mainstream media, she has developed a versatile reporting style. Her previous tenures at high-traffic platforms like The Lallantop and Dainik Bhaskar provided her with deep insights into the information needs of a diverse Indian audience. Academic Foundations: Post-Graduate in Journalism from the Indian Institute of Mass Communication (IIMC), India’s premier media training institute. Master of Arts in Ancient History from Banaras Hindu University (BHU), providing her with the historical and cultural context necessary to analyze long-standing social structures and legal evolutions. ... Read More © IE Online Media Services Pvt Ltd