UNION OF INDIA Vs. PREM SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal by the Union of India is directed against the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 16.7.2007, whereby he quashed the order passed by the appellant treating the period of service from 9.9.1993 till 22.4.2002 as dies non and held that only the period from 9.9.1993 till 15.10.1993 be treated as dies non and the remaining period shall not be treated as dies non and had held that interest of justice would be met if 50% of the salary for this period is paid to the writ petitioner. There is no dispute that the petitioner remained willfully absent from 9.9.1993 to 25.9.1993. He was charged under Section 10(m) of the Central Reserve Police Force Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and convicted and sentenced for imprisonment till rising of the Court. The petitioner was also dismissed from service vide order dated 15.10.1993. He challenged the said order by way of CWP No. 927 of 1994 and this Court vide its judgment dated 7.9.2001 set aside the order of dismissal on the ground that the petitioner was neither charged nor convicted under the provisions of Section 9 (f) of the Act. The conviction of the petitioner under Section 10(m) of the Act was not disturbed. The present appellants were directed to pass a fresh order based on the conviction under Section 10(m) of the Act.

(2.) AFTER the judgment of this Court, the appellants reinstated the petitioner and no order of penalty in terms of the order of this Court was passed except that it was ordered that the period from 9.9.1993 to 22.4.2002 would be treated as dies non for all purposes. The learned Single Judge has made a reference to Section 13 of the Act and has come to the following conclusions: -

(3.) WE have heard Mr. Sandeep Sharma, learned Assistant Solicitor General of India, who submits that since the petitioner did not work for this period he is not entitled to any salary and further more according to him under Section 13 of the Act, pay and allowances can be ordered to be deducted. We are not in agreement with this submission. The petitioner remained out of service for no fault of his. He was wrongly dismissed from service, as held by this Court in the earlier writ petition. There was no charge against him under Section 9(f) of the Act and he had only been charged under Section 10(m) of the Act. Therefore, it was not as if the petitioner himself voluntarily remained absent after the earlier order of termination of his services was passed.