Augustine George Masih, J. - (1.) The petitioner has approached this Court challenging the order dated 14.1.2011 (Annexure P-3) passed by the Superintendent of Police, Sirsa vide which the period from 12.3.1992 to 27.4.2010, when the petitioner was out of service because of the dismissal order passed against him vide order dated 12.3.1992 till his reinstatement in the light of the order passed by this Court in CWP No. 13733 of 1993, which was preferred by the petitioner, decided on 7.1.2010, has been treated as dies-non period under principle of "No work No pay".
(2.) The impugned order can not sustain in the light of the show cause notice, which was issued to the petitioner after passing of the order dated 7.1.2010 in CWP No. 13733 of 1993 (P-1), wherein this part of the punishment, which has been imposed vide the impugned order was never informed to the petitioner. The impugned order thus being violative of the principle of natural justice can not be sustained. His further contention is that the said punishment of treating the period from 12.3.1992 to 27.4.1020 as dies-non period is not provided under the Punjab Police Rules, 1934 and, therefore, the punishment being de horse the statutory rules cannot be sustained. Accordingly, he prays for quashing of the same.
(3.) On the other hand, counsel for the respondents submits that the petitioner was terminated by the order dated 12.3.1992 for his absence from duty for seventeen days, after holding a regular departmental enquiry. However, this Court vide order dated 7.1.2010 set aside the order of dismissal and the matter was remitted back to the disciplinary authority to initiate fresh proceedings on the enquiry report by issuing fresh show cause notice to the petitioner communicating him his past conduct and punishments suffered by him seeking his explanation and thereafter pass an appropriate order keeping in view the mandate of Rule 16.2 of the Punjab Police Rules, 1934 as applicable to the State of Haryana.;