WP(C) 1280/2007 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MRS JUSTICE ANIMA HAZARIKA Heard Mr. NK Baruah, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. BN Gogoi, learned State counsel appearing for the State respondents. 2. Praying for a direction to the respondent authorities to release the pay and allowance which according to the petitioner he is entitled to from his date of discharge from service i.e., 10.10.1996 to the date of his reinstatement i.e ., 21.11.2001 as provided under law and further to determine the seniority of th e petitioner as per provision of Rules and Procedure, the instant writ petition has been filed. 3. The petitioner’s case in brief is that the petitioner was appointed as C onstable (AB) on 18.01.1996 and thereafter, he was sent on deputation to Assam P olice Training Centre, Dergaon for undergoing basic training for 1 (one) year. W hile he was undergoing training a criminal case was instituted against the petit ioner being GR Case No.1033/1996 and due to the said criminal case he was discha rged from service on 10.10.1996. The petitioner had challenged the order of disc harge by way of filing a writ petition being C.R. No. 6050/1997. At the time of hearing, after going through the order of acquittal passed by the learned trial Court on 20.5.1999, this Court vide judgment and order dated 09.10.2001 quashed the order of discharge dated 10.10.1996 directing that the petitioner be reinsta ted in service and, accordingly, the petitioner was reinstated in service w.e.f. 21.11.2001. But after his reinstatement in service, the petitioner has not been granted pay and allowances as admissible under the Rules from the date of disch arge from service i.e., 10.10.1996 to the date of reinstatement i.e., 21.11.2001 . It is also to be noted that no departmental proceeding has been initiated agai nst the petitioner and the petitioner has been allowed to complete his probation . The seniority of the petitioner has also not been determined as per Rules afte r his date of confirmation in service. 4. In view of the same, the withholding of the pay and allowances from 10.1 0.1996 to 21.11.2001 has caused great hardship to the petitioner. Hence the inst ant writ petition with the aforesaid prayer. 5. This Court while disposing the C.R. No.6050/1997 by quashing the dischar ge order, further made it clear as follows: That being the position of law, the order of discharge quoted above shall stand quashed. But I make it clear that now the authority may proceed as against the petitioner by initiating a departmental enquiry and departmental action may be t aken against him. I also make it clear that during this period the petitioner sh all not be entitled to any back wages and/or subsistence allowance . 6. In view of the direction so issued by this Court in CR No.6050/1997 furt her departmental proceeding was initiated against the petitioner and the Superin tendent of Police, Kokrajhar vide order dated 03.09.2008 disposed of the departm ental proceeding considering the fact that the charges leveled against the petit ioner have not been proved except the fact that he was willfully absent from the barrack of APTC which has been considered on the ground that the delinquent was a trainee constable during that time and as such he might have not been aware o f the discipline of Police perfectly; accordingly, the delinquent was pardoned w ith a warning not to repeat the same mistake in future and to stick to disciplin e in Police Force throughout his service period, meaning thereby that the petiti oner has not been awarded any punishment but has been pardoned with the above wa rning, The grievance of the petitioner in the above background is that since the petitioner has not been found guilty of the charges leveled against him in the disciplinary proceeding, the pay and allowances of the petitioner which has been withheld from 10.10.1996 to 21.11.2001 are liable to be released along with oth er consequential benefits. 7. An affidavit-in-opposition has been filed on behalf of respondent No.4 i .e., the Superintendent of Police, Kokrajhar wherein it has been stated in parag raph 13 as thus: That with regard to the statement made in paragraph 12, 13, and 15 the deponent begs to state that the judgment and order dated 09.10.2001 passed by th is Court clearly indicated that the writ petitioner could not be entitled to any back wages/and/or subsistence allowances during the period of his discharge and therefore the deponent have not paid any pay and allowance during the period of his discharge as the writ petitioner was not entitled to the same and therefore the question of misinterpretation of judgment and order dated 09.10.2001 did no t arise and his representation dated 07.07.2005 also has no significance. The di sciplinary authority has since initiated departmental proceeding against the wri t petitioner vide Memo No.KJR/RO/2007/2756 dated 09.04.2007. 8. The specific stand taken by the authority is that the petitioner has not challenged the judgment and order dated 09.10.2001 passed in CR No.6050/1997 wh ereby it has been clearly stated that during the period of his discharge the pet itioner shall not be entitled to any backwages and or subsistence allowances, th e same holds the field and attains its finality and, therefore, the same cannot be re-opened in a subsequent writ petition. 9. Mr. Gogoi, learned State counsel submits that it has been categorically stated in paragraph 12 of the affidavit-in-opposition filed by respondent No.4 t hat the petitioner has not been confirmed in service along with other incumbents as he was discharged on 10.10.1996, more so, in view of the judgment and order dated 09.10.2001 passed in CR No.6050/1997, the writ petitioner is not entitled to any backwages and/or subsistence allowances during the period of his discharg e and for that reason the petitioner has not been paid any pay and allowances du ring the period of his discharge. 10. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties. Perused the materials available on record. As directed by this Court, the Department has ini tiated the departmental proceeding and found the petitioner not guilty of the ch arges leveled against him. However, he was found absent while on probation in AP TC and accordingly, he was also warned not to commit the same mistake in future. 11. In view of the above position, I hold that the petitioner is not entitle d to the salary and allowances as claimed for the period from 10.10.1996 to 21.1 1.2001, more so, when he has not discharged any duty during the said period and there is already an order of this Court to that effect. However, keeping in view the sequence of events, I herby direct the petitioner to submit a representatio n to the respondent authorities with a prayer for regularization of the period o f absence from 10.10.1996 to 21.11.2001 for the purpose of determining his senio rity in service including the continuity in service which entails him to get the pensionary benefits, and in the event of submitting such representation by the petitioner, I direct the respondent authorities to consider and dispose of the s ame within a period of 3 (three) months from the date of receipt thereof in acco rdance with law. 11. With the above direction, this writ petition stands disposed of. No cost s.