HUKAM CHAND Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was dismissed from service on account of absence from duty for 495 days during the period 7.2.2003 to 16.6.2004. This was ordered after the charges were proven against the petitioner in the departmental enquiry. The dismissal order was passed on 17.6.2004. The petitioner's appeal against the order of dismissal and the revision filed before the Director General of Police, Haryana were rejected and the major punishment inflicted upon him was affirmed. Aggrieved by the order of dismissal, the petitioner approached this Court by filing CWP No.7622 of 2009 which was allowed vide order dated 21.4.2010. Operative part of the directions of this Court are reproduced below:-

(2.) The dismissal order was set aside in toto and the disciplinary authority was directed to pass a fresh order. In the fresh exercise carried out, major punishment of stoppage of five future annual increments with permanent effect was inflicted on the petitioner vide order dated 21.9.2010 (P-2). As a result of reduced punishment, the petitioner was reinstated in service on 1.10.2010 when he rejoined service and thereafter continues to serve.

(3.) Mr.Namit Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner has very fairly conceded that his client would not be entitled to anything by way of relief for the period 7.2.2003 to 16.4.2004 on account of the fact that it is covered by a punishment order which has attained finality. He further submits from the order of reinstatement dated 21.9.2010 that it is correct inasmuch as it treats the aforesaid period as period not spent on duty for all intents and purposes. He also does not seriously dispute that his client would not be entitled to salary for the period i.e. from the date dismissal to the date of reinstatement i.e. 30.9.2010 on the application of principle of "No Work No Pay". He would urge that there may be cases where backwages also become due and for that each case would have to be examined on its own facts and circumstances. He, however, assails the impugned order dated 21.9.2010 (P- 2) on the ground that after the order of dismissal was set aside by this Court, then the field would be covered by the decision of this Court and not by mere application of Rule 7.3 of the Punjab Civil Services Vol.1 Part 1, as applicable to the State of Haryana and without there being any order of the competent authority to treat the period following dismissal and upto reinstatement due to the order passed by this Court, but still the petitioner would be entitled to be considered for grant of annual grade increments for the period from dismissal to reinstatement notionally. Learned counsel for the petitioner points out that the Superintendent of Police, Rewari by the impugned order (P-2) specifically spoke of the period from 7.2.2003 to 16.6.2004 when he ordered that this period should not be treated as one spent on duty, and therefore, the Officer had denuded his power, if any, to speak of the period after dismissal in absence of exercise of it in the impugned order. Therefore, the petitioner is aggrieved by non-grant of notional increments for the period between the order of dismissal and the order of reinstatement. It is counsel's further submission that the punishment order of stoppage of five increments with cumulative effect has been made to run from the date of the order and not from the date of dismissal which the impugned order now passed substituted and was passed in place of it for the same misconduct. If the order is made to run from the date of its passing it would have a five year effect in the future adverse to his interest. That may have been the arguable had this Court not interfered with the order of dismissal and not set aside the same and the punishing authority on its own or in appeal or further revision had at the administtrative level itself reduced punishment or watered it down. But once this Court had interefered and set aside the dismissal order, the punishment awarded would relate back to the date of dismissal as a substitute punishment deemed to be inflicted on that day for past misconduct covered by the enquiry proceedings and findings arrived at against the petitioner. In this way, Mr.Namit Kumar, learned counsel says that what the real punishment on the ground if the impugned order is allowed to stand it would amount to loss of 11 years of service which period would blackout service which could never have been the intention of the order passed in the first round of litigation and the directions issued by the learned single judge which order has attained finality.