The Orissa High Court ruled that a Mother falsely accused of killing her child cannot be financially punished after acquittal. Rejecting “no work no pay,” the Court ordered 75% back wages, holding the State accountable for years of forced unemployment.
CUTTACK: The Orissa High Court, in a judgment delivered by Justice Dixit Krishna Shripad and Justice Chittaranjan Dash, dealt with an important question of fairness in service law, whether a woman employee, who was later found not guilty, should suffer loss of salary for years she was forced out of service.
The case was filed by Subhasree Pattanaik, who had earlier been dismissed from service. Later, the Central Administrative Tribunal ordered her reinstatement with only 50% back wages. She approached the High Court asking why she should lose the remaining salary when she was not at fault.
The background of the case was serious. The woman was accused of throwing her baby into a canal and attempting suicide. However, during the departmental inquiry, this charge was not proved. Even the criminal court acquitted her in 2019. Despite this, she remained out of service for several years.
Her lawyer argued that since she was cleared of all charges, keeping her away from work and denying full back wages was completely unjust. On the other hand, the government relied on the “no work no pay” principle and supported the Tribunal’s order.
The High Court carefully examined the criminal court judgment and reproduced the crucial findings, which stated:
“From the evidence of the prosecution, it appears that none of the witnesses had seen the accused throwing the child to canal and jumped to canal to commit suicide. The accused pleaded that the child went to the canal for which she jumped to the canal to save her child.
Read Also: POCSO and Rape Charges Can’t Be Used to Punish Consensual Romantic Relationship: Delhi HCThe plea of the accused appears to be probable when none of the prosecution witnesses had seen her throwing the child to canal and jumping to the canal to commit suicide. Offence of murder of Sai Shriya Mohanty and attempt to commit suicide are not proved by the prosecution. Prosecution has failed to prove the charge U/s. 302/309 IPC. I hold the accused not guilty thereunder and acquit her U/s.235(1) Cr.P.C. The accused is set at liberty forthwith”.
The High Court went further and made strong observations about motherhood and human instinct. The judgment noted:
“It is a Jewish proverb that “God could not be everywhere and therefore, he made mothers”.”
The Court also referred to Indian philosophy and stated: “Kuputro Jayet Kwachidapi Kumata Na Bhavati”.
The judges explained that this means a bad son may be born, but a bad mother does not exist. The Court clearly said there was no material to believe that the woman intended to harm her child, and no mother would do such an act.
Rejecting the government’s argument, the Court held that the “no work no pay” principle cannot be applied mechanically. The judgment made it clear that this principle applies only when an employee is at fault. Here, the disciplinary authority itself found her not guilty, and she was kept away from work without any wrongdoing on her part.
The Court also observed that there was no evidence that the woman had any alternative or gainful employment during this period. It acknowledged the emotional trauma she suffered and recorded: “Putra shokam nirantaram”.
The judges explained that the pain of losing a child is lifelong and must be considered while deciding such matters.
Balancing all facts, the High Court concluded that awarding only 50% back wages was unfair. It modified the Tribunal’s order and directed payment of 75% back wages. The Court also warned that if payment is delayed, interest will be imposed, and the responsibility will lie personally on the erring officials.
This judgment reinforces a key principle, that when the State wrongly keeps an employee out of service and later admits there was no fault, financial punishment cannot continue in the name of procedure. Justice must be practical, humane, and accountable.
Explanatory Table: Laws & Sections Involved
| Law & Section | Purpose | How Applied in This Case |
| Constitution of India – Articles 226 & 227 | Empowers High Courts to exercise judicial review over decisions of tribunals and authorities | The petitioner invoked these powers to challenge the Central Administrative Tribunal’s order granting only 50% back wages |
| Indian Penal Code – Section 302 | Deals with punishment for murder | The criminal court held that the charge of murdering the child was not proved, leading to acquittal |
| Indian Penal Code – Section 309 | Punishes attempt to commit suicide | The allegation of suicide attempt was rejected due to lack of evidence |
| Code of Criminal Procedure – Section 235(1) | Allows court to acquit an accused after full trial | The petitioner was formally acquitted under this provision |
| Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 114 | Permits courts to presume facts based on natural human conduct and common experience | The High Court relied on natural maternal instinct to reject the allegation that the mother harmed her child |
| Service Law Principle – “No Work No Pay” | Salary is generally not payable for the period an employee does not work | The Court held this principle inapplicable as the petitioner was kept out of service without any fault |
| Departmental Disciplinary Rules | Provide procedure to examine misconduct of government employees | The disciplinary authority itself found the petitioner not guilty, weakening the basis for denial of full back wages |
| Central Administrative Tribunal Act / Service Jurisprudence | Governs service disputes of government employees | The Tribunal’s partial relief was reviewed and modified by the High Court |
Case Details
- Case Title: Subhasree Pattanaik vs Union of India & Another
- Court: Orissa High Court, Cuttack
- Case Number: W.P.(C) No. 20364 of 2021
- Date of Judgment: 15 January 2026
- Bench: Justice Dixit Krishna Shripad & Justice Chittaranjan Dash
- Counsels:
- For Petitioner: M/s Sidheswar Mallik, P.C. Das, M. Mallik & S. Mallick, Advocates
- For Opposite Parties: Mr. P.K. Parhi, Deputy Solicitor General of India, with Mr. S.K. Samantaray, Central Government Counsel
Key Takeaways
- When an employee is acquitted in a criminal case and found not guilty in departmental inquiry, the State has no moral or legal right to punish him or her financially through salary cuts.
- The “no work no pay” principle cannot be blindly applied; it must fail where the employee was forced out of service without any fault of their own.
- Prolonged suspension or dismissal based on unproven allegations causes irreversible financial and psychological damage, something courts must actively correct.
- Accountability must shift to erring officials; delay or injustice by the system should not be borne by the affected individual.
- Service laws must ensure fairness and accountability whenever any employee is wrongly denied salary or livelihood.
This Could Change Your Case-Get FREE Legal Advice-Click Here!
Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the Indian courts and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of “ShoneeKapoor.com” or its affiliates. This article is intended for informational and educational purposes only. The content provided is not legal advice, and viewers should not act upon this information without seeking professional counsel. Viewer discretion is advised.