- (1.) The petitioner has impugned the order dated 28.02.2012 passed by respondent no.2 (Engineer-in-Chief) denying the petitioner salary/wages for the period 09.09.2002 to 23.06.2005, i.e. the period that the petitioner remained out of service after his dismissal/removal from service, vide an order dated 09.09.2002 passed by respondent no.2.
(2.) The background facts are that the petitioner was working as a Draftsman in the respondent-Department of the Government of Haryana after initially having been appointed as a Tracer, on 17.11.1972. He was charge-sheeted for absence from service between 28.10.1991 to 30.03.1993 and was dismissed, as already noticed, on 09.09.2002, which order was challenged in appeal to respondent no.2, consequent upon which the order of dismissal was modified to one of removal from service, vide order dated 24.06.2004, as disclosed by the respondents in their reply. Both these orders were challenged by the petitioner by filing CWP No.14372 of 2004 and, vide order dated 07.04.2005, a Division Bench of this Court quashed both the aforesaid orders of the respondents, on the ground that the petitioner was not given ample opportunity to reply to the 2nd show cause notice issued to him. However, liberty was given to the respondents to proceed afresh in the departmental proceedings, from the stage of grant of opportunity to the petitioner to submit his reply to the second show cause notice issued to him on 19.08.2002. Consequently, the petitioner was reinstated into service on 24.06.2005 and the disciplinary proceedings commenced afresh from the stage aforesaid.
(3.) Thereafter, vide order dated 14.03.2007, the 2nd respondent while agreeing with the report of the Enquiry Officer, that the charges against the petitioner stood established, inflicted a punishment of stoppage of four increments with cumulative effect and directed that the period of absence from 28.10.1991 to 30.03.1993 be treated as non-qualifying service. The petitioner, in the meanwhile, had sought voluntary retirement on 05.08.2005, which was eventually accepted vide order dated 20.11.2009, w.e.f. 04.04.2007. When he was not paid his retirement benefits thereafter, he filed CWP No.799 of 2012, also praying therein, for release of his salary between 09.09.2002 and 24.06.05, which was disposed of by a coordinate Bench, vide order dated 13.01.2012, directing that the representation already made by the petitioner be decided in the light of the judgment of a Full Bench of this Court, in Radha Ram Vs. Municipal Committee, Barnala, 1983 85 PunLR 21. Thereupon, the impugned order dated 28.02.2012 was passed, which has now been challenged. The said order is shown to have been passed, exercising jurisdiction under Rule 4.20(b) of the Punjab Civil Services Rules, Vol.II (as applicable to Haryana). The said rule is reproduced hereinunder:- "The period of break in service between the date of dismissal, removal or compulsory retirement, as the case may be, and the date of reinstatement, and the period of suspension (if any) shall not count unless regularized as duty or leave by a specific order of the authority which passed the order of reinstatement.";