DILIP KUMAR DUBEY Vs. STATE OF C.G.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of this petition, the petitioner has sought the following relief(s):-

(2.) Facts of the present case are that the petitioner was initially appointed to the post of Constable on 5/7/1982 and in the year 1991, when the petitioner was posted at Police Station-Kota, District Bilaspur, a false complaint was made by the then Town Inspector before the Superintendent of Police and a charge-sheet was issued on 24/2/1993. An Enquiry Officer was appointed, and after receiving the enquiry report, a show-cause notice along with the enquiry report was served upon the petitioner on 14/4/1993. The petitioner filed a reply, and thereafter, the punishment of compulsory retirement was imposed on 30/6/1993. The petitioner preferred a departmental appeal before the Inspector General of Police, and the same was dismissed vide Order dtd. 12/10/1993 and the second appeal was also dismissed on 3/2/1994. The petitioner filed an Original Application (O.A.) before the State Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur bearing O.A. No. 2399/1996, and after the abolition of the tribunal, the matter was transferred to the High Court of Chhattisgarh, where it was registered as WPS No. 1407 of 2005. The petition was partially allowed, the orders passed by the disciplinary authority and appellate authority were quashed, the matter was remitted back to the disciplinary authority to initiate a proceeding afresh, and the punishment was also found disproportionate. It was observed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court that 'the petitioner would be entitled to reinstatement but without back wages. The reinstatement and other service benefits shall be solely for the purpose of completing the departmental proceedings, and the entitlement of the petitioner would be adjudicated by the authorities depending on the result of the disciplinary proceeding'.

(3.) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the proceeding was again initiated and the Superintendent of Police vide Order dtd. 4/7/2011, reinstated the petitioner in services and further held that on the principle of no work-no pay, the petitioner would be entitled to salary and allowances. He further submitted that the pay slip for the month of August, 2014 would show that the petitioner was paid a basic salary of Rs.6910.00 but the other consequential benefits were not granted to the petitioner. He also submitted that the petitioner was considered a fresh appointee, and therefore, he prayed that a direction may be issued to the respondents to grant other benefits such as notional seniority, promotion, etc., and a proper pay scale. In support thereof, he placed reliance on the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Central Bank of India and others Vs. Dragendra Singh Jadon reported in (2022) 8 SCC 378.