A police officer's completion of a diversionary program after he was indicted on criminal charges does not entitle him to back pay for the period he was suspended from the job, a New Jersey appeals court ruled Wednesday.

The Appellate Division said the New Jersey Civil Service Commission correctly denied Rockaway Township police officer Clifton Gauthier's request for back pay for the three years he was suspended without pay. While back pay is granted to public employees who are acquitted of criminal charges or in cases where charges are dropped, those situations are considered favorable dispositions while pretrial intervention is not, the appeals court ruled.

Gauthier was suspended without pay in January 2014 after he allegedly interfered with a relative's drunken driving prosecution. He was later indicted on charges of second-degree official misconduct and third-degree tampering with a witness. The official misconduct charge was dismissed by the Morris County prosecutor so that Gauthier could gain admission to pretrial intervention. Gauthier was reinstated to his job in March 2017 after completing the program.

The Civil Service Commission said in April 2018 that Gauthier was not entitled to reimbursement for the period charges against him were pending.

The Appellate Division panel consisting of Judges Carmen Alvarez, William Nugent and Patrick DeAlmeida noted on appeal that a common-law principle bars payment of public employees for time they did not work. But they also note that a statute, N.J.S.A. 40A:14-149.2, says a police officer who is found not guilty after being suspended from office is entitled to recover back pay.

Gauthier asked the court to interpret that statute broadly, even though it goes against the common-law principle of no pay for time not worked. But the panel rejected that idea.

"If the Legislature wanted to include PTI as vindication enabling an officer to collect back pay, it could have readily amended the statute. We will not construe the law more broadly than indicated by its plain language. And the plain language at the time the law was enacted in 1973 did not include PTI, a diversionary program adopted in 1990," Alvarez wrote for the court.

The appeals court also rejected Gauthier's assertion that PTI meets the definition of a favorable disposition required to qualify for back wages and benefits. While pretrial intervention avoids an adjudication of guilt or innocence, a favorable determination in a criminal prosecution is defined as a final determination on the merits in a defendant's favor, Alvarez wrote.

Gauthier's lawyer, Timothy Smith of Caruso Smith Picini in Fairfield, said he will appeal to the state Supreme Court.

Jessica Jansyn of Laddey, Clark & Ryan in Sparta, who represented Rockaway Township, did not respond to a request for comment.