WP(C) 1163/2011 BEFORE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE B.K. SHARMA.. Heard Mr. D.R. Gogoi, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Ms R . Chakraborty, learned Addl. Sr. Govt. Advocate, Assam. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 27.9.2006, so far as the same relates to treating the period during which the petitioner was under order of dismissal from service pursuant to a departmen tal proceeding. In the order, it has been provided that the said period will be treated as no work no pay . The petitioner was dismissed from service pursuant to a departmental pro ceeding, which was assailed in WP(C) No.5353/2002. The writ petition was dispos ed of by judgment and order dated 7.3.2006 with the following direction :- 11. I, therefore, interfere with the punishment imposed and as the same had been so imposed without due consideration of the relevant facts and circumstance s as pointed out in the present order, I am of the view that the authority shou ld be directed to reconsider what should be the correct measure of punishment to be imposed on the petitioner. Such reconsideration will be done by the authorit y within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of thi s order and if on such reconsideration any other punishment is imposed on the pe titioner which may have the effect of his reinstatement in service, I deem it ap propriate to leave it to the authority to make appropriate orders for award of s uch consequential benefits as may be found to be due to the petitioner. 12. The impugned order dated 21.7.2001 is therefore set aside and the writ a pplication, consequently, stands partly allowed, as indicated above. On perusal of the aforesaid direction, what is seen is that while interferring w ith the impugned order of dismissal dated 21.7.2001, the disciplinary authority was granted the liberty to pass appropriate order for consequential benefits. It was also provided that the said authority would be at liberty to impose any oth er punishment. Pursuant to the aforesaid judgment and order, the Superintendent of Police, Lakh impur, North Lakhimpur passed the Annexure-2 order dated 27.9.2006 reinstating t he petitioner in service with penalty of stoppage of annual increment without cu mulative benefit for one year. The second part of the order is that the period o f dismissal from service would be treated as no work no pay . In the aforesaid judgment and order, there was enough indication that the author ity would be at liberty to impose any other penalty other than dismissal, remova l and/or compulsory retirement. It was the desire of the Court that the petitio ner should be reinstated in service with any other penalty. As regards the peri od of absence to be treated, the authority was granted liberty to pass appropria te order in respect of the period of absence, which entailed pursuant to the ord er of dismissal dated 21.7.2001. The authority passed the aforesaid order dated 27.9.2006 imposing the penalty of stoppage of annual increment for one year with further provision that the petit ioner would not be entitled to get back wages. It is not the case of complete ac quittal of the petitioner from the charge levelled against him. The charge agai nst the petitioner having been established and the authority having substituted the penalty of dismissal with that of stoppage of annual increment for one year, it was within the competence and jurisdiction of the said authority to treat th e period of absence in accordance with law, for which, the liberty was also gran ted in the earlier judgment and order. The petitioner having not rendered any se rvice from the date of dismissal on 21.7.2001 to the date of reinstatement on 27 .9.2006 and he having been imposed with penalty of stoppage of annual increment for one year, the disciplinary authority thought it prudent not to grant back wa ges, which cannot be said to be arbitrary and/or illegal. It cannot be said that the earlier order of dismissal was wholly unjustified. What the Court provided in the earlier round of litigation that the petitioner be imposed with any other penalty, which would entitle him to reinstatement in service. The petitioner accepted the aforesaid order dated 27.9.2006 and joined his servi ces and now, after more than 4 years from the date of the said order, has filed this writ petition praying for full salary for the period of absence pursuant to the order of dismissal dated 21.7.2001. Considering the entire facts and circum stances, I am of the considered opinion that no such relief can be granted to th e petitioner. Consequently, the writ petition is dismissed.