Do Employees Have a Right to Back Wages if They Are Acquitted After Custody?

One of the most contested issues in service jurisprudence concerns whether a government employee, who is arrested and kept in judicial custody, can be denied salary for the period of detention even if later acquitted of all charges. This issue directly implicates the principles of “no work, no pay,” equity, and fairness in employment law. 

The Rajasthan High Court in Harbajan Singh v. Superintendent of Police, Ajmer (2025) confronted this very dilemma. The Court quashed the denial of wages for the custody period and held that an employee who is ultimately acquitted cannot be financially penalised for circumstances beyond his control. This article critically examines the legal principles, statutory provisions, judicial reasoning, and comparative precedents that shape this issue.

Factual Background of the Case

The Petitioner: Harbajan Singh, a Constable in the Police Department, was arrested on 21 August 2000 on allegations under Sections 306 and 376 IPC and provisions of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

Custody and Suspension: Following his arrest, he remained in judicial custody till 1 August 2002. His services were suspended under Rule 13 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (CCA) Rules, 1958.

Acquittal: On 1 August 2002, he was acquitted of all charges by the trial court. His suspension was revoked on 11 September 2002.

Departmental Proceedings: Though a departmental enquiry was initiated, he was exonerated. The Disciplinary Authority (DA) on 10 October 2003 directed that the suspension period be counted for service benefits. However, it paradoxically declared the custody period (21.08.2000–01.08.2002) as “leave without pay.”

Challenge: Aggrieved, the petitioner approached the Rajasthan High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution.

Thus, the legal question boiled down to whether wages can be denied for the custody period when the employee is ultimately acquitted and departmental proceedings also end in his favour.

Arguments Advanced

Petitioner’s Contentions

1. Custody Not Voluntary Absence: His non-attendance was not voluntary but compelled by judicial custody.
2. Exoneration Should Restore Service Benefits: Since he was acquitted and exonerated, denial of wages amounted to double punishment.
3. Inconsistency in Order: The DA’s order simultaneously recognised his entitlement for suspension benefits but denied wages for custody period—internally contradictory.
4. Rule 54 of Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951: Mandates full pay if an employee is exonerated after suspension.

Respondent’s Stand

1. Principle of No Work, No Pay: Salary is linked with actual service; hence wages cannot be claimed for a period when the employee was unavailable.
2. Discretion of Disciplinary Authority: The authority has latitude to treat custody period differently from suspension.
3. Acquittal Not Automatic Entitlement: Merely being acquitted does not automatically confer the right to full back wages.

Judicial Reasoning

Justice Anand Sharma of the Rajasthan High Court delivered a detailed judgment highlighting two decisive considerations:

Internal Inconsistency of the DA’s Order

• On one hand, the order exonerated the petitioner and held suspension period to be counted for all service purposes.
• On the other, it denied pay for the same period by treating custody as “leave without pay.”
• Such self-contradiction was held legally untenable.

Equity and Fairness in Detention Cases

• The Court emphasised that custody was involuntary and not the petitioner’s choice.
• Punishing him financially despite his acquittal would amount to penalising an innocent person.
• The principle of “no work, no pay” must be contextually applied; it cannot override equity where liberty was curtailed by the State itself.

The Court concluded that the denial of wages for the custody period was arbitrary, unreasonable, and inconsistent with Rule 54 of the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951. It directed the respondents to pay full salary and allowances for the entire period including custody, subject to adjustment of subsistence allowance or other earnings.

Legal Framework

Rule 54 of Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951

Provides that when an employee is reinstated after suspension or dismissal, the authority must decide on pay and allowances.

Clause (2): If fully exonerated, the employee shall be entitled to full pay and allowances as if never suspended.

Clause (4): The suspension period shall count as duty for all purposes.

Thus, once acquitted and exonerated, the petitioner had a statutory right to full wages.

“No Work, No Pay” Doctrine

General principle: Salary is quid pro quo for service rendered.

But exceptions exist where the absence is involuntary, e.g., illegal suspension, wrongful termination, or detention ending in acquittal.

Precedents Considered

1. Raj Narain v. Union of India (2019) 5 SCC 809

The Supreme Court held that once disciplinary proceedings are dropped, an employee is entitled to full wages for suspension period, particularly when a subsequent acquittal occurs

2. Abhaya Chandra Mishra v. State of U.P. (Allahabad HC, 2025)

The High Court ruled that custody beyond the control of the employee, followed by acquittal, entitled the employee to wages. It distinguished between:

• Employees on bail but suspended (no work, no pay may apply), and
• Employees actually detained and later acquitted (wages payable)

3. Anil Kumar Singh v. State of U.P. (2021)

Allahabad High Court clarified that if detention prevented duty and innocence was ultimately proved, denial of wages would be unjust.

4. Other Cases

• Capt. M. Paul Anthony v. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd. (1999) 3 SCC 679: Suspension must be justified, else back wages follow.
• State of Kerala v. E.K. Bhaskaran Pillai (2007) 6 SCC 524: Back wages are not automatic but depend on facts.

Analysis of Key Principles

1. Involuntariness of Custody: Unlike voluntary absence, custody deprives liberty by force of law. Holding the employee guilty of “absence” disregards this involuntariness.
2. Acquittal Removes Stigma: Once acquitted, no criminal liability survives. Continuing financial penalties undermine the acquittal’s restorative effect.
3. Parity with Suspended Employees on Bail: It would be paradoxical if an employee on bail (who could at least attend departmentally) receives better financial treatment than one incarcerated but later acquitted.
4. Equitable Balancing: The doctrine of no work, no pay, though important, cannot be applied rigidly. Equity requires that innocent employees should not bear disproportionate hardships.

Implications of the Judgment

• Strengthening Employee Rights: Reinforces that acquitted employees cannot be deprived of legitimate financial entitlements.
• Check on Arbitrary Discretion: Disciplinary authorities must act reasonably and consistently.
• Clarification of Rule 54: Establishes that exoneration under departmental proceedings triggers full wage entitlement, even for custody period.
• Precedential Value: This judgment aligns Rajasthan with progressive views of other High Courts, notably Allahabad, and harmonises with Supreme Court dicta.

Key Highlights of the Decision

Justice Anand Sharma mandated:

The respondents are directed to comply with the penultimate direction contained in their own order dated 10.10.2003 and to treat the entire period of suspension (21.08.2000 to 11.09.2002), which includes the period of judicial custody 21.08.2000 to 01.08.2002, as service for all purposes, and to pay to the petitioner all pay and allowances due for that period, subject to adjustment of any amounts already paid or earned by the petitioner during the intervening period. Payment of arrears shall be made within Ten weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment.

Critical Perspective

While the judgment ensures fairness, some counterarguments persist:

• Administrative Burden: Departments may fear financial liability for long custody periods.
• Potential Misuse: Employees acquitted on technical grounds may still receive benefits.
• Balancing Public Exchequer: Courts must distinguish between honourable acquittal and acquittal on benefit of doubt.

Nonetheless, the overarching principle remains that the State cannot punish twice—first by detention, then by wage denial.

Conclusion

Rajasthan High Court’s ruling in Harbajan Singh decisively answers the question: an employee cannot be denied wages for custody period if ultimately acquitted. Judicial custody, being involuntary, cannot be equated with abandonment of duty. Rule 54 of the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951, and precedents like Raj Narain and Abhaya Chandra Mishra establish that fairness, equity, and justice must govern wage entitlements in such cases.

Thus, while “no work, no pay” is a foundational rule, it yields to the higher principle of “no guilt, no penalty.” The judgment not only secures employees’ rights but also strengthens public confidence in fair treatment within service law.