Majahar Ali vs State Of Tripura And Ors

Heard Mr. P. Roy Barman, learned counsel assisted by Mr. K. Nath, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as Mr. D. Bhattacharjee, learned G.A. and Mr. M. Debbarma, learned Addl. G.A., appearing for the State-respondents.

By means of filing the present petition, the petitioner has challenged the impugned order dated 29.06.2015 issued by the Disciplinary Authority and the order dated 13th /15th July, 2016 issued by the Appellate Authority, wherein, the Disciplinary Authority had imposed the following punishments:-

"GOVERNMENT OF TRIPURA OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE & COLLECTOR UNAKOTI DISTRICT, KAILASHAHAR

No.F.12(43)/DP/DUE/14/1565-68 Dated, Kailashahar, the 29.06/2015.

ORDER

Departmental proceeding was drawn up against MD. Majahar Ali, LDC while working in SDM's office, Longtharai Valley under Rule 3 of TCS(Conduct) Rules, read with Rule 14 of the CCS(CCA)Rule-1965 vide memorandum No.F.7(60)/DM(D)/ESTT/09/3506-09 dated 21.12.2010 of District Magistrate & Collector, Dhalai District, Ambassa for the charges framed against the delinquent staff. Consequently Dr. K.D. Sinha, Commissioner of Departmental inquiries, Agartala was appointed as inquiring Authority for detailed inquiry into the charge. The inquiring Authority had also submitted his report dated 28.08.2014. From the findings of the report of the inquiring Authority it is found that the articles of charge framed against the Accused Officer Md. Majahar ALI, LDC has been established and he was found guilty for violation of the provision Rule 3 of the TCS (Conduct) Rules, 1988.

On receipt of the findings of Inquiry Authority, the A.O. Md. Majahar Ali, LDC now working in SDM's office, Kumarghat has been directed to submit representation, if any to the inquiry report dated 28-08-2014 vide memo No.F.12(43)/DP/DUE/14/598-99 dated 04-03-2015. Accordingly Md. Ali, A.O. has submitted representation dated 18.03.2015. Subsequently he had been summoned to appear before the undersigned to present his cause in person on 15.06.2015 at 3. P.M.

Now, therefore, after careful consideration of the findings of the Commissioner of Departmental inquires and thorough examination and consideration of the written representation as well as verbal statement of MD. Majahar Ali, A.O. during personal hearing on 15.06.2015, the undersigned (Disciplinary Authority) in exercise of powers conferred under CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 hereby decides the to dispose the proceeding by inflicting following punishment.

Immediate recovery of misappropriated amount of Rs.27,700/- (Rupees twenty seven thousand seven hundred) only in 6 monthly instalments from the salary of Md. Majahar Ali, LDC.

Withhold one increment with cumulative effect from the date of increment.

The contents of the order is to be recorded in the Service book. The Head of Office is directed to take follow up action accordingly.

Sd/-

District Magistrate and Collector Unakoti District, Kailashahar"

The above punishments were confirmed by the Appellate Authority.

The brief fact of the case is that, while discharging the duties as Lower Division Clerk, the petitioner was given responsibility to supervise and execute certain works. The Department concerned detected some irregularities in the execution of the said works. A preliminary inquiry was conducted. After submission of the report of the preliminary inquiry, the Disciplinary Authority had proposed to hold a departmental proceeding against the petitioner. The inquiry authority was appointed and the articles of charges were framed which are as under:-

"Article-I

That said Md. Majahar Ali, LDC was while functioning as implementing Officer during the period posted in DM's Office, South was asked to execute the work order No.9098-102 dated 27.03.2009 & 9093 -97 dated, 27.02.2009 by the SDM, LTV. Total works amounting to Rs.1,10,000/- against the two work orders were awarded to MD. Majahar Ali, LDC, I.O. As per the report of the Enquiry Committee. Md. Majahar Ali, I.O.,had submitted 5(five) No. Vouchers & Muster Roll in one case worth Rs.60,000/- and in the second case 6(six) No. Vouchers & Mr worth Rs.50,000/- but the output assessed by the Junior Engineer was worth Rs.32,300/- in the former and Rs.36,500/-in the latter case. And thus, Sri Ali, LDC did not complete the works as per the estimate which amounted to insubordination and lack of integrity and devotion to duty. This act of Md. Majahar Ali, LDC amounts to misconduct and is a violation Rule-3 of the Tripura Civil Service (Conduct) Rules, 1988.

Article-II

That said Md. Majahar Ali, LDC while functioning as implementing officer during the period posted in SDMs Office, Lontharai Valley, a press clipping alleging defalcation of Govt. money by so me staff of SDM's office, LTV was received from the Principal Secretary, Govt. of Tripura vide No.F.2(1)pr. Secy/DM/09/899 dated 05.06.2009 and Revenue Department's letter No.F.2(5)/PS/REV/09/203 dated 21.07.2009. Pursuant to the above letters, a committee consisting of a team of officials under the Chairmanship of ADM & Collector, Dhalai was formed vide Memo No.F.10(29)/DM(D)/CON/09/4490-4501 dated 23.07.2009 to conduct an inquiry on the issue. After completion of inquiry , the committee submitted a report on 30.07.2009 vide No.F.24(5)/ADM(D)/CON/2007/573 dated, 30.07.2009. As per report of enquiring committee it was found that the work was executed only to an amount of Rs.68,800/-. The remaining amount of Rs. 41,200/- was lying with Md. Ali, LDC functioning as I.O. This amounts to misappropriations of government money, lack of integrity and devotion to duty which is un-becoming of a Govt. servant and is violation Rule-3 of the Tripura Civil Service (Conduct) Rules, 1988.

Article-III

That said Md. Mahahar Ali, LDC was while functioning as implementing Officer during the period posted in SDM's office, Longtharai Valley, given an advance of Rs.1,10,000/- for execution of work orders regarding repairing of Chawmanu T.K. office & Type III qtrs., of SDM's office, LTV. Above amounts were drawn by the DDO though fully voucher Bill Nos.809 dated, 24.03.2009. No.805 dated, 24.03.2009. The enquiry report reveals that the bills were not drawn in proper manner. No voucher was enclosed with the bills, the estimate were only treated as voucher at the time of drawal. And it is noticed that Md. Majahar Ali as I.O. had certified ont he back side of the vouchers attached with the Bill No.809 dated, 24.03.2009. No. 805 dated,24.03.2009, that he had made payment of Rs.1,10,000/- even though no such payment was made by him against these vouchers, then,(Certified copies of bills attached). The inquiring committee report reveals that the worked was executed to the extend of Rs. 68,800/- only. These amounts to fabrication of records and submissions of fake vouchers with an intention of drawing money illegally, which amounted to misconduct, lack of integrity and unbecoming of a Govt. servant for violation of Rule.3 of the Tripura Civil Service (Conduct) Rules, 1988."

The petitioner participated in the inquiry proceedings. He submitted an application on 27.01.2012 for supplying the following documents:-

Adjustment voucher for Rs.60,000/- submitted to SDM, Longtharai Valley Sub-Division (Custodian-SDM-LTV);

Preliminary enquiry report conducted by Shri P. Chakma, ADM, Dhalai into the allegation as per order of Shri Brijesh Pande. DM & Collector, Dhalai. (Custodian, D.M. Dhalai).

The said documents were not supplied to the petitioner.

Prosecution side adduced evidence, submitted one document i.e., Exbt. SW/1. The petitioner had also adduced himself as D.W.

The inquiry authority after completion of the inquiry submitted his report to the disciplinary authority. After taking into consideration the report of the inquiry authority, the petitioner was supplied with the same. He was also asked to submit written representation in response to the findings mentioned in the report. The petitioner, accordingly, submitted representation. After consideration of the said representation, the disciplinary authority had imposed the punishments as aforestated.

The petitioner preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority. The Appellate Authority had confirmed the punishments imposed by the Disciplinary Authority vide order dated 13th/15th, July 2016.

Being aggrieved by the said impugned order of punishments, the petitioner has preferred the present writ petitioner asking this Court to exercise the power of judicial review under the plenary jurisdiction of this Court.

Mr. P. Roy Barman, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has attacked the impugned punishment on the ground that the findings of the inquiry officer and the punishment imposed by the Disciplinary Authority which is upheld by the Appellate Authority are perverse and liable to be set aside. The learned counsel has further submitted that this is a fit case to exercise the power of judicial review vested upon this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. According to the learned counsel, the present case is based on no evidence.

On the other hand, Mr. M. Debbarma, learned Addl. G.A., appearing for the State-respondents has submitted that there is clear evidence, apparent on the face of the record, that the petitioner had misappropriated a sum of Rs.27,700/- in course of execution of the works, he was entrusted to undertake.

Based on those aforesaid submissions, this Court is to examine whether it is a fit case to exercise the power of judicial review of this Court. It is an admitted position that the petitioner was afforded with all reasonable opportunities to defend himself against the charges levelled against him. The inquiry officer before analysing and assessing the evidence had formulated three points on the basis of the evidence and materials recorded and placed before him, the said three points for decision are:-

1) Whether the A.O. is liable for drawal of Rs.1,10,000/- against the alleged two work orders treating the estimates as vouchers violating the Rule 306 of CTR?

2) Whether the A.O. has misappropriated the amount of Rs.32,300/- +Rs.36,500/- = Rs.68, 800/-against two works orders as mentioned in the articles of charge as per assessment of output done by Junior Engineer after a improper implementation of the work or not?

Whether the A.O. has violated the provision of Rule 3 of the TCS(Conduct) Rules, 1981?

While assessing point No.1, the inquiry officer held that as per Rule 130 of Central Treasury Rules (CTR), money is withdrawn by presentation of bills to Treasury. The bill should be signed by a subordinate gazetted officer authorized by the Head of the Office as per Rule 142 CTR. DDOs have to check the bills independently by another person before passing to ensure correctness of the claim.

After being so observed, the inquiry officer held that responsibility does not rest alone upon the Accused Officer(A.O). DDO and Accountant were also liable for such drawal of fund. He further held that none of the prosecution witnesses deposed that the A.O. had certified the vouchers for drawal of two bills i.e. Bill no.809 dated 24.03.2009 and bill No.805 dated 24.03.2009 involving an amount of Rs.1,10,000/-, related to the alleged two works. Documentary proof about the bills also was not produced and exhibited by the prosecution in support of the allegation. Hence, according to him, a scope of doubt had prevailed around this issue and for that reason the inquiry officer opined that due to the aforesaid facts, benefit of doubt must go to the accused officer and he held that the charge of drawal of Rs.1,10,000/- against the accused-officer had not been established.

While deciding the point No.2 as indicated above, the inquiry officer had assessed that P.W.-1(Mohan Kr. Jamatia, Head Clerk) stated that he knows the charge levelled against the A.O. He verified 33 bills except two bills which were drawn on the basis of estimates (Fully-vouched). In cross, the said witness stated that he could not say the number of bills of alleged 33 bills and the amount involved in those bills. Further he held that in course of inspection of the work site, the accused-officer was not present. The inquiry officer had also discussed the evidence adduced by P.W.-2 (Sri Pratap Chakma, ADM, Dhalai) who stated that he was aware of the charge brought against the A.O. He was one of the members of the inspection team which was headed by DM, Dhalai District. The committee had furnished the inspection report in course of the proceeding which was exhibited as Exbt. S/1. The said witness has further stated that the inspection was conducted during implementation of the works. P.W-3, being a technical person deposed that the committee of inquiry assessed the output of the two works worth Rs.36,500/- and Rs.32,300/- respectively, which was mentioned in the articles of charges. In cross examination, the said witness had stated that though the A.O. did not tell him about completion of the work but from technical point of view he held that the work is completed as colouring was done.

While analysing the said evidence, the inquiry officer had held that the defence side mainly contended relying upon the deposition of P.W.-2 that inspection of the work was held during the ongoing stage of implementation. According to the inquiry officer, such stand of the defence is not sustainable because the adjustment of the work namely, "Maintenance of the type III quarter at SDM, Office" was submitted by the AO on 23.07.2009 which indicates completion of the work. The inquiry officer further held that as per inquiry report i.e., Exbt. S/1, the date of submission of the adjustment of the said work was on 23.07.2009 which was prior to the date of inspection conducted on 25.02.2009 and 26.07.2009, as furnished by the inquiry team. That means, adjustment report was submitted by the petitioner, delinquent after inspection made by the inquiry committee appointed for that purpose. The inquiry officer further held that deposition of P.W.-3 is to be accepted because he is a technical person. Thereafter, the inquiry officer had held that the prosecution witness on measurement of the volume of the work had assessed the output from technical point of view in terms of Rs. 32,300/-. Logically, the estimated cost was at Rs. 60,000/-. So, according to him, actual expenditure incurred by the petitioner should be Rs.32,300/-. Thus, the accused-officer did not utilise the remaining Rs.27,700/- and it was misappropriated by the petitioner. The inquiry officer also reported that the estimated cost of work order vide No.9098-102 dated 27.03.2009 for 'Maintenance of Type-III Quarter at SDMs Officer, LTV' amounting to Rs.60,000/- was drawn vide Bill No.809 dated 24.03.2009 and its output was assessed at Rs.32,300/- by the Junior Engineer, being a technical person by applying his „technical method'. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the inquiry officer held that part of the allegation of this point in respect of implementation of the work namely „Maintenance of the type III quarter at SDMs Officer, LTV' was established.

The inquiry officer also had observed that the presenting officer had furnished a brief argument but the inquiry officer held that the presenting officer had superficial knowledge of the fact and he further observed that the presenting officer did not make deep study on the oral evidence and exhibited documentary evidence. The inquiry officer having so observed further held that there was no clear indication regarding the remaining works i.e. the repairing of the Chawmanu TK Office Toilet & Sanitation, involving estimated cost of Rs.50,000/- in the inspection report i.e., Exbt-S/1, about the submission of adjustment. He found that the date of submission of adjustment of the alleged work was not given in the inquiry report i.e., Exbt-S/1. He further found that there was scope of doubt whether inspection was done at the time of implementation stage or after completion in respect of this work resulting the assessment being doubtful. He further held that doubtful nature of document against the particular work does not construe proof, and in such a position and on the face of such document, allegation against the alleged work i.e. the repairing of the Chawmanu T.K. Office Toilet & Sanitation is not established.

Having analysing and assessing the evidence in the manner as enumerated above, the inquiry officer held that the allegation that the petitioner had misappropriated a sum of Rs.27,700/- was established. He viewed that points No. 2 and 3 as set out for decision were established.

As I said earlier, after receipt of the said inquiry report furnished by the inquiry authority, the disciplinary authority had furnished the report to the petitioner vide memorandum dated 04.03.2015 wherein the petitioner was asked to submit his written representation in response to the inquiry report dated 28.08.2014 within a period of 15 days. The petitioner, accordingly, had submitted the representation wherein he explained the reasons why the report suffers from material irregularities. The petitioner also submitted that none of the charges levelled against him, particularly, the charge No.2 also had not been established. But, the disciplinary authorities vide order dated 29.06.2015 had inflicted punishment wherein an order of recovery to the tune of Rs. 27,700/- was made and further one increment was withheld with cumulative effect from the next date of increment.

The petitioner preferred appeal against the said impugned order of punishment before the Appellate Authority. The Appellate Authority vide order dated 13th/15th July, 2016 had upheld and affirmed the order of punishment as passed by the disciplinary authority. The order of the Appellate Authority is reproduced herein below for convenience:-

"GOVERNMENT OF TRIPURA OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY REVENUE DEPARTMENT

No.F.10(52)-REV/05/P-II Dated, Agartala, The 13th 15th July, 2016

ORDER

Md. Majahar Ali, LDC, SDM‟s Office, Kumarghat now Longthari Valley Sub-Jail has submitted an appeal under Rule23 of the CCS (CC & A) Rules, 1965 before the undersigned against the punishment order No.12(43)/DP/DUE/14/1565-68, dated 29/06/2015 issued by the DM, Unakoti District, Kailashahar as Disciplinary Authority(DA) imposing penalty under CCS(CC&A0 Rules 1965.

On receipt of the appeal application, all the case records in this matter were called from the office of the DA and examined in details. Comments have also been obtained from the DM & Collector, Unakoti District on the appeal petition of the Accused Officer (AO) Md. Majahar Ali, LDC. On detailed examination of the case record of Disciplinary proceeding against the AO, the findings of the Inquiring Authority, the issued raised by the AO in his appeal and the factual position against them, the undersigned has come to the following conclusions:-

(1) As the assessment of less work output was done by Junior Engineer of RD Block who is a technical person and nothing contrary to that assessment was submitted by the AO during the inquiry by IA, the findings of the Inquiring Authority (IA) are found to be justified. In any case, Inquiring Authority (IA) has already given benefit of doubt to the AO for want of conclusive proof in regard to repairing work of Chawmanu T/K office Tiolet & Sanitations and reduced the total outstanding unadjusted advance amount against two work orders given the AO from Rs.41,200/- to Rs.27,700/-. Hence, the punishment regarding recovery of misappropriated amount of Rs.27,000/- from the AO remains upheld.

(2) It is noted that LDC is not technically competent to take up construction work. So, appointment of MD. Majahar Ali, LDC as implementing Officer (IO) for the two work orders relating to repair/maintenance of office building was not appropriate in the first place. This unnecessarily gave scope for misutilisation and/or misappropriation of funds by the IA due to lack of required technical knowledge/skills. Taking this aspect into consideration, a lenient view is hereby taken by ordering that withholding of one increment of MD. Ali, AO shall be without cumulative effect. This shall encourage the AO to adopt the correctional path by avoiding recurrence of any such act in future which is unbecoming of a govt. servant.

With the above order, the appeal is hereby disposal of.

Sd/-

(Puneet Agarwal) Secretary (Appellate Authority) Revenue Department "

It is the settled proposition of law that in a disciplinary proceeding, the scope of judicial review of this Court is very narrow and limited. The decision of the punishing authorities can only be interfered when it is found that the process of entering into the decision that a delinquent is guilty of committing misconduct is perverse and if it shocks the concise of the Court or if it is a case based on no evidence or if it is found that after application of mind, no reasonable person can come to such a conclusion.

Keeping in mind, the aforesaid principles of law, I have meticulously re-appreciated the evidence laid by the witnesses incourse of proceedings.

The inquiry authority first took into account the point that whether the A.O. is liable for drawal of Rs.1,10,000/-against the alleged two work orders treating the estimate as voucher violating the Rule 306 of CTR. While deciding this point, the inquiry authority had held that the petitioner had no authority to withdraw the entire amount unless and until it was checked and cleared by the DDO and Accountant. The inquiry officer while deciding this point has held that there is no evidence that the petitioner had drawn Rs.1,10,000/- in execution of two works for which he was entrusted to execute. The inquiry authority held that this point of withdrawal of Rs.1,10,000/- had not been established. The question is if the first point that there is no evidence that the petitioner had withdrawn the sum of Rs.1,10,000/-, then, how the point number 2 will be proved where it was held that Rs.27,700/-was not utilised. While deciding the point Nos.2 and 3, the inquiry officer had held that an inquiry committee was form to inspect the works undertaken by the petitioner, but, there was no reflection about the fate of the other works, because, the inquiry committee thus formed did not submit any report about the statues of the work for repairing of the Chawmanu T.K. Office, Toilet and Sanitation for an estimated cost of Rs. 50,000/-. The inquiry officer himself had doubted about the said work.

The inquiry officer had discarded the submission of the presenting officer who was appointed on behalf of the Department on the ground that the said presenting officer had no knowledge or idea and according to inquiry officer the said witness supported the petitioner. Further, the inquiry officer while deciding point No.1 had held that no document in regard to bill No.809 dated 24.03.2009 was produced before him. Then, it is not understood how he came to the conclusion that the sum of Rs.27,700/- was withdrawn or utilized by the petitioner. From the impugned orders of punishment as imposed by the disciplinary authority as well as the Appellate Authority, it is apparent that they did not apply their independent mind while assessing the evidence recorded by the inquiry officer at the time of proceeding.

A Division Bench of this Court (in which I was also a party) in the case of Dilip Kumar Datta Vs. The State of Tripura and ors., in WA No.62 of 2014 referring to Rule 27 of CCS & CCA Rules, 1965 had held as under:-

"19. From a close reading of Rule 27(2)(b), it clearly envisages that the appellate authority should pass orders taking into the note that the findings of the disciplinary authority are warranted by the evidence on the record. According to this Court, the mandate of law should be the paramount consideration to the appellate authority while deciding a representation preferred before him against the order of penalty passed by the disciplinary authority, which would provide some sort of justification by way of discussion of evidence, though, not in an elaborate form. But, we did not find a little bit of discussion of evidence which warrants the appellate authority to uphold or affirm the impugned order of penalty dated 25.02.2009, passed by the disciplinary authority (Principal Chief Conservator of Forest, Tripura). Simply stating that he has gone through the appeal and did not find anything new facts or circumstances brought out by the delinquent is not the compliance of the mandate of law. We reiterate that discussion, even if, in shorter form is a sine qua non to justify the compliance of the requirements of Rule 27 of the CCS & CCA Rules, 1965.

Furthermore, it is apposite to take a note of Rule 11 of CCS & CCA Rules which deals with the provisions for awarding penalties and stipulates that penalties to be imposed by giving good and sufficient reasons. The appeal is being a continuation of the proceeding, an obligation casts upon the appellate authority also to give reasons in the spirit of Rule 11 of the CCS & CCA Rules, 1965. According to us, both Rule 11 and Rule 27 of the CCS & CCA Rules are to be read and considered conjointly and harmoniously. Further, the doctrine of equity, fairness and reasonableness demands every action of the executives must be founded on reasons and due application of mind. Further, it is quite discernible that the concerned delinquents should know the reason why his appeal did not favour being the departmental appeal a fact finding, appellate authority keeping in view of R.27 has mandated to apprise the record of enquiry including the finding recorded by the disciplinary authority and an appraisal of the record of enquiry to assign its own reasons and to examine that the penalty must commensurate the nature & seriousness of allegation which is to be inflicted upon the delinquent.

The learned Single Judge has observed in his judgment that the appellate authority has adequately discussed and considered the departmental appeal in terms of Rule 27(1) of the CCS & CCA Rules, 1965 and is conformity with the principles laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Ram Chander Vrs. Union of India & Ors., reported in (1986) 3 SCC 103. But in view of the discussions made above, we respectfully disagree with the observation of the learned Single Judge that the appeal filed before the appellate authority has been adequately dealt with. We, accordingly, hold that the order passed by the appellate authority does not fulfill the essential requirements of Rules 11 and 27 of the CCS & CCA Rules as discussed in the preceding paragraphs.

We have gone our conscious look to the order passed by the appellate authority wherefrom we are satisfied that the nature of the order does not fulfill the essential requirements of Rules 11 and 27 of the CCS & CCA Rules, 1965. It is well entrenched principle of law that assigning of reason is an integral part of the administration of justice. Hence, we are inclined to interfere with the decision of the learned Single Judge in respect of the order passed by the appellate authority. According to us, the appellate authority should deal with the contentions raised by the delinquent in the appeal and that will only fulfill the requirements of Rules 11 and 27 of the CCS & CCA Rules, 1965 as well as the true interpretation of the case of Ram Chander (Supra) where the Apex Court has held that the appeal disposed of by the appellate authority without assigning any reason was not appreciable and hence, remanded the matter to the appellate authority for disposal of the appeal afresh."

In the instant case, I find that the disciplinary authority also did not discuss anything about the findings of the inquiring authority. He only mentioned that on receipt of findings of the inquiry authority it is found that the articles of charges framed against the petitioner has been established. The representation, the petitioner had submitted to the disciplinary authority has been taken into consideration, but, I don‟t find in the impugned order dated 29.06.2015 that the disciplinary authority had applied his mind to the contentions raised by the petitioner in his written representation. This is a sheer non-application of mind. The disciplinary authority is statutorily bound to assign reasons before awarding punishment. But in the case in hand, I find neither the Disciplinary Authority nor the Appellate authority had assigned any reasons before awarding the punishment as aforestated upon the petitioner. Moreso, as I said earlier, I find the inquiry report itself has suffered from perversity. I am convinced that the present case is a case based on no evidence.

Having held so, the instant writ petition filed by the petitioner is allowed. Accordingly, the order dated 29.06.2015 issued by the Disciplinary Authority and the order dated 13th /15th July, 2016 issued by the Appellate Authority are set aside and quashed. Consequently, the punishments imposed upon the petitioner as aforestated are declared as bad in law and hence set aside. The petitioner shall be re-instated in service within one month from the date the petitioner shall furnish a copy of this order to the competent authority. However, he shall not be entitled to any back salaries for the period he did not work. His salary shall be computed for extending retiral benefits.

With the above observation and direction, the instant writ petition stands allowed and disposed.