@ 04/; ( ’2‘ IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Saw-E Bww Writ Petition (S) No. SOh 7/ /201 1 w’ Petitioner Soni Ram Dhruv, aged about 50 years, S/o Shri Ganguram Dhruv, working as Constable (Arakshak) (Old Batch No. 1009 and new Batch No. 293) at Akasvani Moranga (Jagdalpur), R/o Village — Pallod, Post — Tekari (Julum), Police Statoin —- Abhanpur, District — Raipur (C.G.) Versus Respondents 1 State of Chhattisgarh, through the Secretary, Home Department, Mantralaya, D. K. S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) 2. Inspector General of Police, Baster Range, Lalbag, Jagdalpur 494 001 (C.G.) 3. 4 Superintendent of Police, (C.G.) Jagdalpur WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF A SUITABLE WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION TO DO JUSTICE IN THE MATTER. PETlTlONER H!GH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH I BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (S) NO. 1042 OF 2011 Soni Ram Dhruv Versus State of Chhattisgarh & Others (Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India) Single Bench : Hon’bie Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. RESPONDENTS Present :- Shri Saif Khan, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri A.V.Shridhar, Panel Lawyer for the State. ORDER (ORAL) (Passed on this 08‘“ day of April, 201 1) Challenge in this petition is to the order dated 23.10.2010 (Annexure P-1), whereby the appellate authority, having considered all the aspects of the matter, directed reinstatement of the petitioner to the post, as last opportunity. However, back wages was denied on the principles of “no work no pay”. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner, while working as Constable was removed from service on 27.07.1990. Against the said order, the petitioner preferred an appeal, which was dismissed on 13.02.1991 and even the mercy appeal was also dismissed on 07.06.1991. Thereagainst, the petitioner preferred O.A.No.1810/1996 before the State Administrative Tribunal and after abolition of the State Administrative Tribunal, the same was transferred to this Court and renumbered as W.P.(S) No.1367/2005. The said writ petition was disposed of by this Court by order dated 5.2.2010 and the matter was remitted back to the appellate authority to decide the appeal filed by the petitioner afresh, in accordance with law. Thereafter, the appeal of the petitioner was decided and he was W; R) V reinstated in service by order dated 23.10.2010 (Annexure P-1) without back wages on the principle of “no work no paY’. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner was not gainfully employed elsewhere. Thus, the petitioner is entitled to back wages. On the other hand, Shri Shridhar, learned Panel Lawyer submits that the petitioner is not entitled to back wages, as the order passed by the disciplinary authority has not been found as illegal. However, the appellate authority, considering case of the petitioner on humanitarian aspect, granted one more opportunity s by reinstating him on the post, without giving payment of back wages on the principle of “no work no pay“, and as such, it was a part of punishment. Learned counsel further submits that this is not the case, where the petitioner was deprived form attending the duty on account of any illegal order. Having considered all the aspects of the matter, it is found that the petitioner has approached this Court earlier in W.P.(S) No.1367/2005, impugning the order dated 27.07.1990, whereby, a penalty of dismissal from services was imposed. Thereagainst, the appellate authority confirmed the order passed by the disciplinary authority on 13.02.1991. The appellate order was examined by the Director General of Police in a mercy petition, which was also dismissed on 0506.1 992. This Court set aside the impugned orders dated 13.2.1991, 07.06.1991 and 05.06.1992, on the ground that the appellate authority has not passed a reasoned order and the same was passed in a mechanical manner. The matter was remanded to @ lM yak . Ashok u the appetlate authority to decide the appea! filed by the petitioner, in accordance with law. This Court did not express any opinion on the vaiidity of the order of punishment recorded by the disciplinary authority on the ground raised by the petitioner in the writ petition. The appeiiate authority in the impugned order, has considered aii the aspects and observed that the aliegation against the petitioner with regard to remaining absent from duty of Treasury in village Chichgaon and committing offence of misbehaviour with one Ku. Geeta Bai, resident of Chichgaon. Secondly, the conduct‘of the petitioner was unbecoming of an employee of the poiice force. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, a part of the charge No.1 that he misbehaved with Ku. Geeta Bai was not proved but the remaining other charges have been found proved. The disciplinary authority agreeing with the enquiry report, dismissed the petitioner form the service. The appellate authority considered the entire mater on humanitarian ground and reinstated the petitioner without exonerating him from the charges granting one time opportunity to the petitioner. Thus, the reasons assigned by the appeilate authority is just & proper and does not warrant any interference but denial of back wages in such a situation, cannot be held as improper and unjust. in view of foregoing, the writ petition is dismissed. /~~/ / ,r/ sd! — . “‘3 its“ K. Ag“"‘° Sa Judge