IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP (T) No. 11457 of 2008. Decided on: 6.1.2011. ___________________________________________________________ Jagdish Parkash. … Petitioner. Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and another. … Respondents. ___________________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K. Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes. For the petitioner : Ms. Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Anil Jaswal, Dy.A.G. ___________________________________________________________ Justice V.K. Sharma, Judge (Oral). The petitioner was working as Kanungo on the establishment of the respondent-Department, particularly respondent No.2. He has since retired from Government service in September, 2005. On 13.5.1999 an office order in respect of the petitioner was passed by the Collector, District Sirmaur, Nahan, operative part whereof is as follows:- “NOW, THEREFORE, I, Rakesh Kaushal, Collector District Sirmaur, Nahan, H.P. do hereby order that the period w.e.f. 20.5.1998 to 23.9.1998 (127 days) shall be treated as dies-non resulting in loss of pay and allowances for period in question.” 2. In view of the above, it is manifest that respondent No.2 had already taken a decision in the matter with regard to the alleged willful absence from duty on the part of the petitioner from 20.5.1998 to 23.9.1998 (127 days) and had ordered that the said 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 period shall be treated as dies-non resulting in loss of pay and allowances for the period in question. However, strangely enough on the same very day (13.5.1999) a regular charge-sheet for the above misconduct was served upon the petitioner. Consequently, a regular inquiry was held in the matter which ultimately resulted in his exoneration from the charge vide order dated 2.3.2001 passed by respondent No.2. 3. In view of the above, since on exoneration of the petitioner the charge for the alleged willful absence from duty from 20.5.1998 to 23.9.1998 did not survive, non-payment of salary to the petitioner for the said period cannot be sustained by any para- meters and accordingly, the impugned order dated 13.5.1999, Annexure A-10 is quashed along with all consequential benefits. To be explicit, the salary for the period 20.5.1998 to 23.9.1998 which was with-held shall be payable to the petitioner along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum within three months from the date of production of a copy of this judgment by the petitioner, failing which higher interest at the rate of 9% shall be payable. 4. The petition stands disposed of in the above terms, so also pending application(s), if any. (V.K. Sharma) Judge. January 6, 2011. (cr)