LPA No.1250 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH LPA No.1250 of 2011 Date of Decision: November 08, 2011 Gurmit Singh .......Appellant Versus State of Punjab and others .......Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA Present: Mr.Arihant Jain, Advocate for the appellant. <><><> TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA, J. By virtue of the instant Letters Patent Appeal, the appellant seeks modification of the order dated 16.8.2010 passed by the learned Single Judge in Civil Writ Petition No.2127 of 1994 to the extent that his order of dismissal from service having been set aside, he should be held entitled to the arrears of salary as well. 2. Facts, in brief, are being noticed: The appellant was enrolled as a Constable on 26.9.1977. He was thereafter promoted as a Head Constable. The appellant was named as an accused in FIR No.100 dated 28.9.1987 registered at Police Station Tapa, under Section 15 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. After registration of the case and during the pendency of the trial, the LPA No.1250 of 2011 2 major penalty of dismissal from service was imposed upon the appellant vide order dated 8.10.1987 passed by the Senior Superintendent of Police, Sangrur. Such order, admittedly, was passed by invoking the provisions of Clause (2) (b) of Article 311 of Constitution of India by dispensing with the requirement of holding a regular enquiry. The order of dismissal from service was affirmed by the appellate and revisional authorities in terms of passing of orders dated 26.7.1993 and 17.11.1993 respectively. It has so transpired that the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Barnala vide judgment, dated 4.2.1992, acquitted the appellant by granting benefit of doubt. It was towards assailing such order of dismissal as also the orders passed by the appellate and revisional authorities that the appellant had preferred Civil Writ Petition No.2127 of 1994. 3. Learned Single Judge by exhaustive judgment has gone into the legality of the impugned orders, and vide impugned judgment dated 16.8.2010 has held the order dated 8.10.1987 imposing the penalty of dismissal from service upon the appellant as also the subsequent orders dated 26.7.1993 and 17.11.1993 passed by the appellate and revisional authorities to be bad in law. Liberty has been granted to the respondents to pass an order afresh in accordance with the provisions of law and also taking into consideration the observations made in the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge. In the eventuality of the respondents opting to re- instate the appellant into service, he has been held to be entitled to retiral benefits. However, applying the principle of 'no work no pay', the appellant has been held to be not entitled to any monetary benefits in the form of back wages/arrears of salary. LPA No.1250 of 2011 3 4. Mr.Arihant Jain, learned counsel appearing for the appellant has been heard at length. He has confined his grievance only as regards the denial of back wages/arrears of pay and has accordingly sought modification of the impugned judgment dated 16.8.2010 to such extent. Learned counsel has vehemently argued that the appellant was falsely implicated in a criminal case and he has since been acquitted by the competent authority. The order of dismissal having been held to be bad in law, there was no justifiable reason to deprive the appellant of the arrears of salary/back wages. 5. We are unable to persuade ourselves to take a different view on the question of grant of arrears/back wages in the backdrop of the facts of the case. This Court cannot shut its eyes to the alleged mis-conduct attributed to the appellant who incidentally was a police official. The allegation against the appellant was that he was in possession of 51 bags each containing 48 kgs. of poppy husk along with his two co-accused. The appellant, it is also alleged to have links with opium smugglers and was helping them in the smuggling activities. 6. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of Vijay Singh v. Union of India and Ors., 2007 (9) SCC 63 while considering a somewhat similar question held as under: “This takes us to consider as to what relief the appellant is entitled to. The appellant was dismissed on 21.1.1998 and since then he is out of service till date. The appellant would be attaining the age of superannuation on March 31, 2012. Having regards the facts and circumstances of this case LPA No.1250 of 2011 4 and the nature of misconduct that is alleged to have been committed by the appellant as a police officer and applying the principle of 'no work no pay' he shall not be entitled to back wages from 21.1.1998 till re-instatement. Also keeping in view the nature of misconduct said to have been committed by the appellant, as a police officer, this order would not preclude the disciplinary authority to initiate a fresh proceeding from the stage of obtaining prior approval of the Additional Commissioner of Police, if so advised. In the event of the authority so decide to hold fresh enquiry from the stage of obtaining prior approval from Additional Commissioner of Police, they may resort to the principle laid down by this Court in paragraph 31 in Managing Director, ECIL, Hyderabad & Ors. v. B.Karunakar & Ors., 1994(1) SCT 319: (1993) 4 SCC 727. Subject to the aforestated observation, this appeal is allowed. No costs.” 7. We are also mindful of the fact that the appellant was dismissed from service in the year 1987. A long period of 24 years has since elapsed. It would not be in public interest to accept the prayer of the appellant as regards grant of arrears of salary/back wages and to burden the State Exchequer to such extent. 8. For the reasons recorded above, the appeal being devoid of any merit is dismissed. ( PERMOD KOHLI ) ( TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA ) LPA No.1250 of 2011 5 JUDGE JUDGE November 08, 2011 SRM