Ramanand Kumar Savita vs Union Of India And Ors

Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, j

Heard Mrs. Swati Shalini, J.C. to Mr. Amit Kumar Das, Advocate for the petitioner and Mr. Binod Singh, C.G.C. for the Central Industrial Secu-

rity Force.

The petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 25.6.2011, whereby and whereunder the claim of this petitioner for salary for the pe-riod

from 15.4.1999 to 28.12.2010 has been rejected. He further prays for a direction to the respondent authorities for release of arrears of salary for the

period from 15.4.1999 to 28.12.2010.

Pursuant to a chargesheet dated 13.1.1999 and after an enquiry and on conclusion of the departmental proceeding the petitioner has been dismissed

from service by the Disciplinary Authority vide order dated 15. 4.1999. The petitioner preferred an appeal against the dismissal order, which was also

dismissed on 30.8.1999. The petitioner moved before this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 3400 of 1999(R), which was allowed on 26.7.2006. This court

disposed of the writ petition by setting aside the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority and confirmed by the Appellate Authority and remanded

back the matter to the Disciplinary Authority with a direction for awarding a lesser punishment having due regard to the nature and circum-stances of

the case in the light of the observations made in the said order. This court further directed the disciplinary authority to dispose of the matter as

expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of the said order.

Thereafter, respondent Central Industrial Security Force preferred a Letters Patent Appeal, being L.P.A. No.614 of 2006 against the order passed in

the writ petition, which was dismissed vide order dated 07.12.2007. The Central Industrial Security Force took the matter before the Apex Court in

Civil Appeal No. 23 of 2009, which was disposed of by order dated 5th January, 2009 (Annexure 5 to the memo of the writ petition) and the matter

was remanded back requesting the High Court to dispose of the matter on merits as early as possible. Thereafter the L.P.A. No. 614 of 2006 was

heard and vide order dated 05.5.2010 the same was dis-missed and the order passed by the learned Single Judge in C.W.J.C. No. 3400 of 1999(R)

was confirmed.

The respondents reinstated the petitioner in service vide order dated 02.3.2011 and passed an order of reduction of pay by three stages in pre-revised

scale for a period of three years with a direction that he will not earn increment during the said period and after completion of the pun-ishment, the

reduced pay will have effect on his future increment.

The order dated 02.3.2011, whereby and whereunder certain incre-ments of the petitioner have been directed to be reduced is not challenged by the

petitioner in the representation. Vide order dated 25.6.2011 the rep-resentation made by the petitioner for payment of arrears of his salary for the

period from 15.4.1999 to 28.12.2010 has been rejected taking into ac-count Rule 25 of CCS Leave Rules, 1970.

Mr. Binod Singh, appearing for Central Industrial Security Force submits that the petitioner has been reinstated in service and in view of Rule 25 of

CCS Leave Rules, 1970 order dated 25.6.2011 has been passed that the petitioner will not be entitled for salary for the period from 15. 4.1999 to

28.12.2010. It is submitted that under Rule 25 of the C.C.S. Leave Rules, 1970, petitioner is not entitled for salary for the period from 15. 4.1999 to

28.12.2010.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this Court, by order dated 26.7.2006 in C.W.J.C. No. 3400 of 1999(R), has set aside the order of the

disciplinary authority and remanded the matter back to the discipli-nary authority to pass an order of lesser punishment. The matter travelled up to the

Supreme Court and remanded back to this Court and thereafter, the Division Bench upheld the order dated 26.7.2006 of the learned Single Judge.

Pursuant thereto the order of reinstatement has been passed by the Central Industrial Security Force reducing the pay of the petitioner by three stages

in pre-revised scale for a period of three years with a direction that he will not earn increment during the said period and after completion of the

punishment, the reduced pay will have effect on his future incre-ments.

Counsel for the petitioner very fairly submits that the aforesaid or-der has not been challenged. She further argues that the petitioner has already been

punished as the aforesaid condition of reduction of pay has been imposed in reinstatement order. Thus, Rule 25 of CCS Rule is not applicable so far as

the petitioner is concerned in view of the earlier litiga-tions before this Court and the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

This Court finds substance in the argument of the counsel for the petitioner. The petitioner has already been punished by way of reduction in the

pay as indicated in the reinstatement order. Therefore, Petitioner is entitled for salary and other allowances from 15.4.1999 to 28.12.2010. Ac-

cordingly, the order dated 25.6.2011 is quashed. The respondent Central Industrial Security Force is directed to pay the salary and other allowance for

the period from 15.4.1999 to 28.12.2010 to the petitioner preferably within 10 weeks of receipt/production of this order.

With the above observation and direction the writ petition is al-lowed.