Regular Second Appeal No. 1577 of 1989 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Regular Second Appeal No. 1577 of 1989 Date of decision: May 10, 2010 Avtar Singh ...Appellant Versus Punjab State and another ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH Present: Mr. Shailender Sharma, Advocate for the appellant. Ms. Ambika Luthra, AAG, Punjab for the State. RANJIT SINGH J. This case has a bit of chequered history. Avtar Singh, appellant was appointed as Constable in District Kapurthala on 15.2.1971. On 26.1.1973, a report was lodged against him alleging that while under the influence of liquor he indulged in eve teasing. He was got medically examined and on the basis of report and the medical examination, order discharging him from the service under Rule 12.21 of the Punjab Police Rules was passed. The representation filed by the appellant against this order was rejected by DIG, Police. Thereafter, he filed a suit challenging his removal from service. The trial Court found the order of removal to be justified and dismissed the suit on 16.9.1974. Against this, the appellant filed an appeal that was allowed by the Additional District Judge, Kapurthala by observing that no proper opportunity was given to the plaintiff. Regular Second Appeal No. 1577 of 1989 2 The State filed an appeal against this order, which was ultimately allowed. Against this, the appellant went to file Special Leave Petition before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, which was got dismissed as withdrawn. It appears that in view of the interim direction passed by this Court, the appellant was taken back in service. Though record in this regard is not available but learned counsel for the appellant has drawn my attention to interim order passed in the earlier Regular Second Appeal, which reads as under:- “The decree recorded by the lower Appellate Court is to the effect that the respondent continues in service as a Police Constable. So, the decree gives two options to the appellant, (i) that it may allow the respondent to join his duty; and (ii) if it does not think it proper to allow him to join his duties, it should pay him the salary with effect from September 16, 1975 when the decree was passed by the lower Appellate Court. Therefore, I dispose of Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 537-C of 1976 with the order that either the appellant should allow the respondent to join his duty and also pay him the salaries effect from September 16, 1975, or in case of denial of permission to the respondent to join his duties, it shall pay to him the salaries during the pendency of the appeal. The appellant may deposit the arrear or salaries due to the respondent with effect from September 16, 1975 and the future salaries in case it does not allow the respondent to join his duties, in the trial Court, and on Regular Second Appeal No. 1577 of 1989 3 deposit of the said amount(s) the same may be obtained by the respondent on furnishing adequate security for refund of the same in the event of success of the appeal, to the satisfaction of the trial Court. 2. It is added for the sake of clarity that the respondent would be entitled to draw his future salaries from the appellant if he remains unemployed. In case he works or seeks some employment anywhere else, he would be entitled to draw his salaries minus the wages or the earnings which he receives from his employment. The arrear of salaries would be deposited by the appellant within two months form today and the future salary shall be deposited in the trial Court within ten days from the date when it falls due.” Instead of paying salary to the appellant, he was reinstated by the State. However, subsequent to dismissal of the Regular Second Appeal, which order was upheld by the Supreme Court, the appellant was again dismissed on 10.6.1985. Besides directions were issued to recover the salary paid to him for the period from 16.9.1975 to 15.2.1978, which had been paid to him under the directions of this Court as per the order referred above. Aggrieved against the same, the appellant filed the present suit, which was dismissed. The appeal was also dismissed against the said order. He has accordingly filed the Regular Second Appeal. The appellant has raised two fold submissions. He would first submit that the order dismissing him on 10.06.1985 is illegal and Regular Second Appeal No. 1577 of 1989 4 liable to be set aside. He would also submit that option was given to the State to either pay him the salary or to reinstate him. Instead of paying salary, the State had reinstated him and accordingly he had worked on the post. In this background, it would not be appropriate to recover the salary for the period for which the appellant had worked consequent on his reinstatement. The counsel has nothing much to say against the impugned order, dismissing him from service on 10.06.1985. I see substance in the submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant that for the period he had worked, he would be entitled to pay and salary. It would not be fair to him deny the salary for this period as he had worked for this period. Accordingly, the part of the order directing recovery of the amount paid to the appellant from 16.09.1975 to 15.02.1978 on the ground that he is not entitled to the same is set aside. However, the order upholding the order of dismissal dated 10.06.1985 is upheld. The Regular Second Appeal is allowed. The substantial question of law in regard to right of the appellant to get pay and allowances for the period he has worked would arise in this case a nd is decided accordingly. Fresh decree sheet be prepared by the Registry of this Court. There shall be no order as to costs. May 10, 2010 ( RANJIT SINGH ) rts JUDGE