THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED & THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.G. SHANKAR WRIT APPEAL Nos. 2058 AND 2227 OF 2004 Common Judgment: (Per Sri Hon’ble Sri Justice Ghulam Mohammed) Since the issue involved in these two writ appeals being the same, they are clubbed and disposed of by this common order. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as arrayed in the writ petition. The writ petitioner was appointed as Head Constable/Driver in Central Industrial Security Force, DAE Zonal Headquarters, Hyderabad on 24.7.1985. While so, on the ground that the writ petitioner did not obey the orders of his superior officers while discharging his duties as driver, he was dealt with under Rule 34 of Central Industrial Security Force Rules, 1969. A charge memo was issued and thereafter an enquiry was initiated into the matter and the enquiry officer after completion of the enquiry, submitted a report holding the charges framed against the petitioner as proved. Basing on the report of the enquiry officer, the disciplinary authority, through order dated 26.8.1999, imposed the punishment of removal from service. Challenging the said order, the petitioner filed an appeal before the appellate authority and the appellate authority through order dated 3.12.1999 rejected the appeal. Aggrieved, he filed a revision before the 1st respondent. The 1st respondent, on re-appreciation of the matter, passed an order on 26.5.2001, observing that the punishment of removal from service imposed against the petitioner was excessive and accordingly reinstated him into service and modified the punishment imposed against the writ petitioner to that of reduction of pay by two stages with cumulative effect for a period of two years. The revisional authority further observed in the said order that the petitioner would not earn any increments during the said period and on expiry of the said period, the reduction would have the effect of postponement of his future increments of pay. In so far as the period from the date of removal from service to that of rejoining duty is concerned, it was treated as dies non. Challenging the order of the revisional authority, the writ petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 19410 of 2002. Through order dated 5.12.2003, a learned single judge of this Court allowed the writ petition in part and directed the respondent-authorities to treat the period of ‘dies non’ as continuous service. Aggrieved by the order of the learned single judge in so far as treating the period of ‘dies non’ as continuous service and in directing deletion of that portion of the order of the learned single judge whereby he modified the punishment of reduction of pay scale by two incremental stages with cumulative effect imposed by the revisional authority, the department filed Writ Appeal No. 2058 of 2004. Writ Appeal No. 2227 of 2004 is filed by the writ petitioner challenging the order of the learned single judge in so far as treating the period of dies non as continuous service for the purpose of pension and retiremental benefits and in denying the benefits of seniority, fixation of pay etc., to him. Sri Ponnam Ashok Goud, learned Asst. Solicitor General appearing on behalf of the department would contend that the learned single judge ought not to have interfered with the order of the revisional authority and ought not to have directed for treating the period of ‘dies non’ as continuous service and the same is contrary to Rule 34 of Central Industrial Security Force Rules, 1969. On the other hand, Sri J.M. Naidu, learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner would submit that when once the learned single judge has observed that the period for which the petitioner was kept out of service be treated as continuous service, the writ petitioner would be automatically entitled to continuity of service, seniority, promotion and retiral benefits and the learned single judge was not justified in observing that the said period be treated as continuous service for the purpose of pension and other retiral benefits only. Perused the impugned order of the learned single judge. In the instant case, the petitioner has rendered an unblemished service of nearly 15 years in the Department. Except the present misconduct, no other misconduct has been alleged against him. Considering the fact that the mis- conduct alleged against the petitioner is trivial in nature, we are of the view that the learned single judge has not committed any error in modifying the order of the revisional authority and in directing for deletion of that portion of the order of the revisional authority through which the revisional authority has observed that “on expiry of this period, the reduction will have the effect of postponing his future increments of pay”. Further, this is not a case of unauthorised absence. Hence, we are of the opinion that the learned single judge was not right in not regulating the period during which the petitioner was kept out of service, which was treated as ‘dies non’ as ‘continuous service’ for the purpose of computation of pension and other retiral benefits only. Accordingly, we allow Writ Appeal No.2227 of 2004 and direct the disciplinary authority to regulate the period, during which the petitioner was kept out of service as per FR 54 of the Rules. Writ Appeal No. 2058 of 2004 filed by the department is dismissed. No costs. _______________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED,J DATE: 23.6.2011 _______________ K.G. SHANKAR,J pnb