Once a government servant is fully exonerated in departmental proceedings, the entire period of suspension must be treated as regular service, and any curtailment of salary is legally impermissible. The Chhattisgarh High Court has now affirmed that interest at 6% per annum is payable on delayed salary payments, even after full back wages have been disbursed.
The Verdict
The petitioner won. The Chhattisgarh High Court held that once a government servant is exonerated in departmental proceedings, the entire suspension period must be treated as duty, and salary for that period must be paid in full. The Court further directed payment of interest at 6% per annum on delayed salary dues, calculated from the respective due dates until actual payment. No further relief was granted.
Background & Facts
The petitioner, a Sub-Inspector in the Chhattisgarh Police, was placed under suspension on 12 February 2018 following a criminal complaint filed by his wife alleging dowry harassment. He was acquitted by the Judicial Magistrate First Class on 28 February 2019. Despite this acquittal, his suspension continued until 24 December 2020, totaling 1046 days. During this period, he received only 50% of his salary as subsistence allowance, without any periodic review or enhancement as mandated by service rules.
Departmental proceedings were initiated against him on four charges, including violation of conduct rules and failure to prevent crimes against women. On 1 August 2022, the disciplinary authority fully exonerated him and closed the proceedings. However, on 31 January 2023, the respondents issued an order treating 225 days of suspension as "no work, no pay" and the remaining 821 days as suspension, thereby denying full salary for the former period.
The petitioner filed representations on 3 April 2023 and 20 September 2023 seeking rectification, which were initially ignored. He then filed this writ petition seeking quashing of the impugned order, payment of full salary with interest, and consequential benefits.
The Legal Issue
The central legal question was whether a government servant, once fully exonerated in departmental proceedings, is entitled to full salary for the entire period of suspension, and whether interest is payable on delayed payment of such salary under constitutional principles of fairness and equality.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The petitioner’s counsel argued that suspension is a preventive measure, not punitive, and that service rules require periodic enhancement of subsistence allowance to 75% after 90 days and 90% after 180 days. The failure to do so was arbitrary and violative of Article 14. The acquittal in criminal proceedings and subsequent exoneration in departmental proceedings rendered the suspension legally untenable. The impugned order treating part of the suspension as "no work, no pay" was without jurisdiction and violated Article 21. The petitioner was entitled to full salary and interest for the entire period.
For the Respondent
The State contended that the petitioner’s grievance had been rendered infructuous because the Inspector General of Police, Bastar Range, had already passed an order on 23 November 2023 treating the entire 1044 days of suspension as "period on duty." The petitioner’s back wages for the period from 1 February 2018 to November 2023, amounting to Rs. 7,92,788, had been fully paid, along with Rs. 93,253 for the period February to June 2018. The petition, therefore, had no remaining substance.
The Court's Analysis
The Court accepted the State’s submission that the petitioner’s back wages had been paid in full, rendering the primary prayer for salary payment infructuous. However, the Court emphasized that the question of interest on delayed payment remained unaddressed. The Court relied on the settled principle that once a government servant is exonerated, the suspension period must be treated as regular service, and any withholding of salary is illegal.
"Once a government servant is exonerated in departmental proceedings, any curtailment of salary or benefits is impermissible."
The Court noted that the delay in payment was not due to any fault of the petitioner but stemmed from administrative inaction and failure to apply the law correctly. The Court held that such delay, even if rectified later, causes financial hardship and violates the right to fair treatment under Articles 14 and 21. The Court rejected the notion that payment of principal amount alone satisfies constitutional obligations.
The Court declined to award interest at the higher rate of 10% sought by the petitioner, observing that 6% per annum was a reasonable and proportionate rate in the context of public sector salary arrears, consistent with judicial precedent on delayed payments by the State. The Court also clarified that interest must be calculated from the respective due dates of each salary installment, not from a single point.
What This Means For Similar Cases
This judgment establishes a clear precedent that exoneration in departmental proceedings entitles a government servant to full salary for the entire suspension period, and that interest is a mandatory component of justice when payment is delayed. Practitioners representing government employees must now routinely claim interest on delayed salary arrears, even if the principal amount has been paid.
The ruling reinforces that administrative delays cannot be remedied merely by payment of principal; constitutional rights demand compensation for the time value of money. This applies equally to cases involving acquittal in criminal proceedings, acquittal in service inquiries, or any exoneration that renders suspension unlawful.
The 6% interest rate set here is likely to become the benchmark in similar cases across state services, unless a higher rate is justified by exceptional circumstances. Practitioners should ensure that representations and writ petitions explicitly seek interest, and that calculations are broken down by monthly due dates to avoid rejection on technical grounds.
The judgment does not extend to cases where suspension was lawful due to pending criminal proceedings without acquittal or exoneration. It applies strictly where the employee has been cleared of all charges.
