IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.6101 of 2010 MADAN ROY, S/O LATE JAGDEO ROY, R/O VILLAGE- MURARPUR, P.S.-BANIAPUR, DISTRICT-CHAPRA. ………………PETITIONER. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA. 3. THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE (CRIME) CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION DEPARTMENT (C.I.D.), GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA. 4. THE DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE (CRIME) CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION DEPARTMENT (C.I.D.), GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA. ……………RESPONDENTS. ----------- 2 10.12.2010 By the appellate order, as contained in memo no. 2291 dated 22.7.2008 (Annexure- 1), the finding of guilt of the petitioner arrived at by the Disciplinary Authority was approved. However, the punishment of dismissal from service passed by the Disciplinary Authority on 26.5.1990 was revoked and two increments for two years were withheld which was to be treated as three black marks. However, it was held in the appellate order that as the petitioner had not worked between 26.5.1990 and 17.7.2008 he will not be entitled to any salary of the period on the principles of ‘no work no pay’. Petitioner has not challenged this order in this writ application. He has filed this writ application only for a mandamus to the 2 respondents to pay his arrears of salary of the period 14.9.1990 to 17.7.2008 i.e. of almost 18 years. The contention of learned senior counsel for the petitioner is that for these long 18 years the statutory appeal of the petitioner remained pending with the respondents and finally his dismissal order has been revoked and he has been allowed to rejoin his service. The petitioner was out of service, for no fault of his, for these long 18 years and only because his appeal remained pending with the respondents. He submits that had his appeal been decided earlier in this manner he would have been reinstated long back and he would have drawn his salary. It is only because of this long pendency of the appeal he has been denied the pecuniary benefits of his salary throughout. Hence, a prayer is made that orders may be passed for payment of salary of the petitioner of the period, full or in part. Learned counsel for the respondents points out that the appellate order is not an order of exoneration. It is only that the Appellate Authority took a sympathetic view 3 in view of the facts and circumstances of the case and set aside that dismissal order. Since the finding of the guilt has been confirmed by the Appellate Authority the Appellate Authority was well within his powers, emanating from Rule 12(1) (a) of the Bihar CCA Rules, 2005, to deny the petitioner’s salary of the period. He also submits that the reliance by the Appellate Authority on the principles of ‘no work no pay’ may be not quite correct, but nonetheless, in effect, the order has been passed denying the salary of the petitioner of the period, in exercise of power under the above mentioned Sub-Rule. This Court has heard the submissions of learned counsels for the parties and has considered the materials available on record. It appears to this Court that it is only because the appeal of the petitioner remained pending for 18 years with the authorities that he is being made to suffer for so long. It is rightly submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that had the appeal of the petitioner been promptly disposed of in the same manner as has been done 18 years after, 4 the petitioner would have joined his service and had started drawing his salary. It also appears to this Court that the Appellate Authority has relied upon the principles of ‘no work no pay’ to deny the salary of the petitioner, which principle does not appear to be applicable in the present case. However, learned counsel for the State has rightly submitted that such order could have been passed by the Appellate Authority in exercise of his powers in terms of the said Clause (a) of Sub-Rule (1) of Rule 12 of the Bihar CCA Rules, 2005. But for exercise of that power under the said Clause, an application of mind by the Appellate Authority to the said provisions of the Clause and its scope and limitations was required. This at least has been done by the Appellate Authority and the Appellate Authority has proceeded to deny the pay of the petitioner only on the principles of ‘no work no pay’. In the circumstances, this Court feels it appropriate to direct the Appellate Authority to reconsider the matter as to whether in terms of the said Clause (a) of 5 Sub-Rule (1) of Rule 12 of the Bihar CCA Rules, 2005 the petitioner can be allowed his salary, full or in part or in whatever proportion it may feel appropriate, or not. The Appellate Authority will keep in mind the provisions of the said Clause, its scope and limitation, the facts of the case and the fact that the appeal of the petitioner remained pending with him for 18 long years before passing appropriate orders in accordance with law in the matter, which shall be passed preferably within a period of two months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. The writ application is disposed of with the aforesaid observations and directions. Arvind/ ( J. N. Singh, J.)