CWP No. 20097 of 2015 (O&M). Case: Manjit Kumar Vs State of Punjab and Ors.. High Court of Punjab (India)
| Case Number | CWP No. 20097 of 2015 (O&M) |
| Counsel | For Appellant: Angel Sharma, Advocate and For Respondents: Rupam Aggarwal, D.A.G. |
| Judges | Jaishree Thakur, J. |
| Issue | Constitution of India - Articles 311, 311(2); Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 - Sections 15, 25, 27A, 29, 61; Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Sections 13(2), 7 |
| Judgement Date | February 15, 2017 |
| Court | High Court of Punjab (India) |
Judgment:
Jaishree Thakur, J.
-
The petitioner joined the Police Department as Constable in the year 1994. He was implicated in criminal case bearing F.I.R. No. 294 dated 06.11.2009 under Sections 15, 25, 27-A, 29 and 61 of the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 read with Sections 7 and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988. On the basis of the FIR, he was dismissed from service by invoking Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India on 10.11.2009. The petitioner was acquitted in the said criminal case by Judge, Special Court Ludhiana on 01.05.2013 and was exonerated of all charges framed against him. On acquittal, the petitioner approached authorities for reinstatement in service and by order dated 14.02.2014, he was taken back but it was ordered that the period from the date of dismissal from service till date of rejoining was to be treated as 'dice non'. Being aggrieved against the order dated 14.02.2014, the petitioner filed an appeal which was dismissed on 9.6.2015. Against the orders dated 14.2.2014 and dated 09.06.2015, disallowing petitioner all benefits for the period he was not working, the instant writ petition has been filed.
-
Mr. Angel Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner had been wrongly dismissed from service on account of a false case that was registered against him and eventually the Judge, Special Court has acquitted him from all charges levelled against him. It is argued that the petitioner is entitled to be reinstated with full pay, allowances and increments etc. and the order dated 14.2.2014 treating the period of dismissal from service till the period of reinstatement as 'no work period' is wholly unsustainable. In this regard, counsel for the petitioner placed reliance upon a judgment rendered in Commissioner, Karnataka Housing Board vs. C. Muddaiah, (2007) 7 SCC 689 to contend that he had been kept out of service for no fault of his and, thus, should be entitled to the consequential benefits on his reinstatement.
-
Per contra, Mr. Rupam Aggarwal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents-State submits that the petitioner had been dismissed from service on account of the FIR lodged against him under the NDPS Act and the PCA 1988. Applying the principle of 'No Work No Pay', petitioner has been rightly denied the benefit of pay and allowances for the period he had remained out of service.
-
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and...
To continue reading
Request your trial