IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.10746 of 2005 JAGDISH RAJWAR Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 3. 16.02.2010 Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Counsel for the State. Despite adjournment granted earlier no counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents bring on record the order of the Superintendent of Police and on which recommendation the Collector has passed the order of reinstatement at Annexure 2. It was primary duty of the petitioner to place all necessary materials on record and he cannot derive any advantage on the failure of the respondents to do so simpliciter. On allegation of dereliction in duty when an offender in his custody escaped the petitioner came to be dismissed from service on 15.7.1994. He assailed the major punishment without a proceeding in accordance with law. This Court in CWJC No. 3581 of 1998 observed that the Superintendent of Police had already recommended the case of the petitioner to the Collector and an appropriate decision be taken upon the same. The Collector has directed his reinstatement directing that the period when he remained out of duty be treated as period of suspension without pay. The relief prayed in this application is for salary from 6.6.1992 to 24.3.1993 the period when he remained out of duty. An order of termination set aside not on merit but on technicality for non compliance of natural justice does not result in reinstatement and claim for salary automatically unless there be specific order to that effect. The order dated 15.7.1994 contains no such direction. In any event of the matter the recommendation of the Superintendent of Police is not on record as to what ultimately transpired on the nature of the allegation against him with regard to escape of an accused in his custody. If the respondents concluded his complicity but for other reasons reinstated him, in service, the petitioner shall not be entitled to salary as claimed on the simple principle of ‘no work no pay’. But if the respondents after enquiry arrived at a finding of lack of any complicity or involvement on the part of the petitioner in the escape the matter becomes entirely different and the petitioner may be entitled to wages considering that he was wrongly denied right to work. Let the District Magistrate pass an appropriate order on his claim for salary between 6.6.1992 to 24.3.1993 in the light of present discussions within a maximum period of three months from the date of receipt and/or production of a copy of this order. This application stands disposed. Snkumar/- (Navin Sinha,J.)