Rakesh Kumar Jain, J. - (1.) THE Petitioner has filed this writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, for the issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari, for quashing the order dated 18th July, 2005 (Annexure P -9), - -vide which the period from 1st July, 1993 to 1st December, 2003, was treated as 'no duty' and consequently, pay and allowances were denied to the Petitioner by applying the principles of 'No work -No pay'. However, the Petitioner has claimed himself to be entitled to full pay and allowances from 1st July, 1993 to 1st December, 2003, treating him on duty having been exonerated from charges, his absence from duty was treated as 'leave of the kind due' and had not suffered any punishment in the second enquiry.
(2.) BRIEFLY stated the facts of the case are that the Petitioner had joined the Punjab Armed Police on 29th November, 1989. As his wife was suffering from fever, he was allowed 8 days' casual leave from 9th December, 1992. When the Petitioner had gone to his native village to attend to his wife, he himself suffered from enteric fever. The Petitioner had informed the department on 17th December, 1992 by way of telegram of his own illness. Thereafter, he was admitted to General Hospital (Emergency Ward), Gurgaon, from where he sent his medical certificate to the Respondents on 12th January, 1993, through registered A.D. Since he remained in the hospital, therefore, he sent another registered letter on 22nd February, 1993, alongwith medical certificate with effect from 15th January, 1993 to 13th February, 1993. The Petitioner further remained in General Hospital, Gurgaon for more than two months and since he had not recovered from enteric fever and back pain, he obtained private treatment from nursing Home of Dr. Anil Bansal. The Petitioner sent a registered letter dated 09 June, 1993 along with his medical certificate. Having recovered from long illness and after obtaining medical fitness certificate from Dr. Anil Bansal dated 15th October, 1993, the Petitioner requested for joining the duty, but he was informed that he has already' been dismissed from service by the Commandant, 3rd Battalion, Phase XI, Mohali, - -vide his letter dated 6th July, 1993. The Petitioner challenged the order in appeal, but the same was dismissed by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Commando Force, Bahadurgarh, Patiala, - -vide his order dated 6th August, 1994. The Petitioner then filed a revision which too, was dismissed by the Inspector General of Police Commando, Punjab, Bahadurgarh, Patiala, - - vide his order dated 7th November, 1997. The Petitioner then filed Civil Suit No. 156 -T dated 4th September, 1998 challenging the order dated 6th July, 1993, 6th August, 1994, 7th November, 1997. The suit was decreed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Patiala, on 14th June, 2001, in which the following order was passed: Keeping in view my observations on the above said issues, the claim of the Plaintiff succeeds and a decree for declaration is passed in favour of the Plaintiff and against the Defendants declaring that the impugned order of dismissal dated 6th July, 1993 passed by Defendant No. 4, order in appeal, dated 6th August, 1994 passed by Defendant No. 3, order in revision, dated 7th November, 1997 passed by Defendant No. 2 are illegal, null and void. With regard to entitlement of Plaintiff to all the rights, benefits and other privileges, it is up to the Punishing authority to decide whether it is entitled to any pay as per rules for the period he did not serve. The Punishing Authority is also at liberty to re -start the departmental proceedings as per provisions of law and service rules.
(3.) THE State of Punjab filed Civil Appeal No. 198 -T dated 3rd August, 2001, assailing the judgment and decree of the trial Court dated June 14, 2001, but the same was dismissed by the learned District Judge, Patiala, - -vide his order, dated February 11, 2002, by passing the following order: The non -service of the Respondent during the departmental proceedings amount to denial of oppourtunity to show cause notice and thus, is prejudicial to the interest of the Respondent in departmental proceedings. Further, it is important to note that no illegality is found in the judgment of the learned lower court as the learned lower court has given liberty to the Punishing Authority to restart departmental proceedings against the Respondent/Plaintiff as per provisions of law and service rules. In view of the aforesaid discussion, there is no merit in the appeal. Consequently the same is dismissed with costs. Decree sheet be prepared. Lower court record be returned;