R N BHAGAT Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) TARUN Agarwala, J. The petitioner was appointed as a Cook in the Central Reserve Police Force in the year 1991. On account of over-stay, the petitioner's services was terminated by an order dated 24th February, 1999, against which, he filed an appeal which was also dismissed. The petitioner preferred a revision, which was also rejected. The petitioner thereafter filed Writ Petition No. 28801 of 1999 praying for the quashing of the orders of the disciplinary authority, the appellate authority as well as the revisional authority and also prayed for a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to restore the services of the petitioner as Cook and to pay him the arrears of salary, and also continue to pay him the current salary month to month. The said writ petition was allowed by a judgment dated 27th February, 2001 and the order of termination was set aside. The Court while setting aside the order of termination, moulded the relief and directed that instead of removing the petitioner from service, 3 increments with cumulative effect be withheld, which would commensurate with the misconduct. The Court was of the opinion that the punishment awarded was excessive and disproportionate to the misconduct. It transpires that the respondents, being aggrieved by the judgment of the learned Single Judge, preferred a special appeal, which was also rejected. Even then the order of the Court was not complied with and the petitioner was compelled to file a contempt application. During the pendency of the contempt proceedings, the petitioner was reinstated in service, but was not paid the arrears of salary vide order dated 24th June, 2002, on the ground, that the petitioner did not work during the intervening period. The petitioner, being aggrieved by the order dated 24th June, 2002, has filed the present writ petition.

(2.) HEARD Shri Lokendra Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri N. P. Shukla, the learned counsel for the respondents.

(3.) HAVING considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner this Court 'is, of the opinion that the petitioner is not entitled to any relief.