Cook R.N. Bhagat C.R.P.F. vs Inspector General of Police C.R.P.F.

R.K. Agrawal, J.—The applicant was employed as a Cook in the Central Reserve Police Force since 1991. On account of serious illness of his wife, he applied for leave. He was granted one day station leave on 24.5.1998. However, he requested for extension of his leave by sending telegrams and applications which was not sanctioned and disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him. After considering the reply submitted by the applicant the Additional Deputy Inspector General of Police, C.R.P.F., Allahabad vide order dated 24th February, 1999 had held the applicant guilty of over staying without leave and removed him from service w.e.f. 24th February, 1999 afternoon. The appeal and revision preferred by the applicant did not meet with any success whereupon the applicant challenged the order of removal by means of filing Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 28801 of 1999 which was allowed by this Court vide judgment and order dated 27th February, 2001 and the extreme punishment of removal from service was set aside as the punishment was highly disproportionate to the charges levelled against him and it shocked the conscience of the Court and in the interest of justice instead of removing the applicant from service three increments with cumulative effects were directed to be withheld.

Against the order dated 27th February, 2001 the Respondent preferred Special Appeal No. 347 of 2001 which was dismissed vide judgment and order dated 19th April, 2002. The order dated 19th April, 2002 became final between the parties.

As the judgment and order dated 27th February, 2001 was not complied with the applicant filed Contempt Petition No. 3023 of 2001 in which while issuing notice a direction was issued that if the order is complied with by the Respondent, he need not appear in person before the Court. Pursuant thereto the order dated 27th February, 2001 was complied with and the applicant was directed to join his duties vide order dated 8th April, 2002. The applicant joined his duties on 16th April, 2002. The order dated 8th April, 2002 was made subject to the result of the special appeal. As the special appeal preferred by the Respondent had been dismissed by this Court vide order dated 19th April, 2002 the applicant claimed for payment of back wages with all other benefits which were admissible to him under law. The same was, however, declined by the Respondents vide order dated 24th June, 2002 on the ground that the applicant did not work during the intervening period. The order dated 24th June, 2002 was challenged by the applicant by filing Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 47399 of 2002 which was dismissed vide order dated 26th August, 2008. The applicant preferred Special Appeal No. 1414 of 2008 which has been admitted on 16th October, 2008.

This Court, however, granted liberty to the applicant to file a review/ modification application in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 28801 of 1999 decided on 27th February, 2001. Pursuant to the liberty granted by this Court vide order dated 16th October, 2008 the applicant filed the present application seeking modification/review of the judgment and order dated 27th February, 2001 in the shape of a direction that the arrears of salary w.e.f. 24th February, 1999 to 15th April, 2002 be directed to be paid to the applicant.

I have heard Sri Lokendra Kumar, learned Counsel for the applicant and Sri N.P. Shukla, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent.

In the application seeking condonation of delay in filing the review application, affidavits have been exchanged between the parties. In the affidavit, as narrated above, it is clear the applicant cannot be held guilty of laches. Therefore, the delay in filing the review application is hereby condoned.

Sri Lokendra Kumar learned Counsel for the applicant submitted that as the extreme punishment of removal from service has been substituted by withholding three increments with cumulative effects vide order dated 27th February, 2001 which has been affirmed in special appeal vide judgment and order dated 19th April, 2002 the applicant is entitled to back wages which the Respondent did not grant on the ground that the application did not work. On the other hand, Sri N.P. Shukla learned standing counsel submited that as the applicant has not wroked at all during the intervening period, he is not eneitled to any salary on the principle of ''no work no pay''.

Having given my anxious consideration to the various pleas raised by the learned Counsel for the parties, I am of the considered opinion that the principle of ''no work no pay'' cannot be made applicable in the facts of the present case. It is true that the applicant did not work during the intervening period when he was removed from service till this Court had set aside the order of punishment but he cannot be made to suffer for no fault of his. When the order of punishment has been substituted by another punishment of withholding three increments with cumulative effects it is clear that the applicant would be entitled to arrears of salary for the intervening period after giving effect to the punishment as substituted by this Court. The order dated 27th February, 2001 is modified to the extent indicated above and it is directed that the applicant is entitled to arrears of salary for the period during which he has been removed from service till the date he has been reinstated in service after giving effect to the punishment ordered by this Court.

In view of the foregoing discussions, the application is disposed of. The Respondents are directed to give effect to this order within one month from the date a certified copy of this order is served upon the Respondents.