RAJ KUMAR Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The prayer in the present petition is for issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari for quashing of order dated 29.02.2012 (Annexure P-7) whereby claim of the petitioner for treating the period from the date of his dismissal from service to the date of reinstatement in service as duty period and to grant arrears of pay and other consequential benefits has been rejected. Thereafter, the appeal filed by the petitioner has also been rejected on the ground of delay. A further prayer has also been made for issuance of a writ in the nature of Mandamus directing respondents to release the arrears of pay and other consequential benefits for the period from 6.1.2000 to 16.10.2009 including increments, seniority, continuity in service along with interest.

(2.) Briefly, the facts of the case as made out in the present petition, are that the petitioner joined as Constable in Punjab Armed Police, 13th Battalion on 10.5.1993. FIR No. 154 dated 11.7.1998 was registered under Sections 302, 323, 148, 149 and 120-B Penal Code at Police Station Sadar Hoshiarpur. Petitioner was placed under suspension vide order dated 16.9.1998 and was reinstated on 30.11.1998. Thereafter, he was convicted by the trial Court vide its judgment dated 30.8.1999 and on account of conviction, the petitioner was dismissed from service vide order dated 6.1.2000. Aggrieved by the judgment of conviction passed by the trial Court, the petitioner filed an appeal which was allowed and he was acquitted of the charge, whereas, the appeal of his co-accused was dismissed. On acquittal by the appellate Court, the petitioner was reinstated in service vide order dated 16.10.2009 whereas his claim for grant of arrears of pay/full back wages/increments/continuity in service/seniority and other allowances during the period he remained dismissed from service w.e.f. 6.1.2000 to 16.10.2009 was rejected vide order dated 29.2.2012. The appeal filed against the aforesaid order dated 29.2.2012 before Inspector General of Police, PAP, Jalandhar Cantt was also dismissed on 20.4.2012 being time barred. Thereafter, the petitioner filed revision petition before Additional Director General of Police, PAP, Jalandhar Cantt which was also dismissed on 9.5.2014 and it was communicated to him vide letter dated 20/22.5.2014. The petitioner has challenged the impugned order dated 29.2.2012 (Annexure P-7) whereby his claim for treating the aforesaid period i.e. 6.1.2000 to 16.10.2009 as duty period along with all consequential benefits was rejected. He has also challenged the orders passed by the Appellate Authority as well as the Revisional Authority by raising various arguments.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was falsely implicated in the case due to party faction in the village and subsequently he was acquitted by the appellate Court. A specific finding has also been recorded in the judgment by the Appellate Court that the petitioner was falsely implicated in the case. Hence, the petitioner is entitled for all benefits from the date of dismissal from service till the date of reinstatement. Learned counsel also submits that petitioner cannot be blamed as he was falsely been implicated in the case and is entitled to full back wages and other consequential benefits for the entire period from 6.1.2000 to 16.10.2009. He further submits that the impugned order has been passed in violation of provisions of Rule 7.3 of the Punjab Civil Service Rules Vol. I Part I Chapter VII (hereinafter referred to as 'the Service Rules'). In support of his contentions, learned counsel has also relied upon judgments rendered in cases Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. & ors. Vs. Nathu Ram, 2010(1) S.C.T. 227 : 2010 (1) SCC 428 , Ishwar Singh Vs. State of Haryana and others, 2012(2) SCT 209 , Sucha Singh Vs. State of Punjab and others, 2013(4) S.C.T. 832 : 2014(2) RSJ 370 and Dhani Ram Vs. U.H.B.V.N. and another, 2015(2) S.C.T. 844 : 2015 (2) RSJ 488 .