Purnendu Singh, J.—Heard Mr. Satya Ranjan Sinha, along with Ms. Seema Kumari and Mr. Dhananjay Kumar, learned counsels appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. Mithlesh Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the respondents.

2. Petitioner has inter alia prayed for following reliefs in the paragraphs No.1 of the writ petition:—

I. To issue Rule of Certiorari for quashing the illegal order so far as against the petitioner of commandant, Bihar Military Police-2, Dehri vide Memo no.4907/R,ka. Dated 8.11.2011 contained in Annexure -3.

II. To grant all the reliefs which was granted to Binod Gond.

III. To grant all benefit such as promotion, salary and other allowances etc. in view of the fact that by the judgment of Hon’ble High Court setting aside dismissal of the petitioner.

IV. To grant any other relief/reliefs which the petitioner found entitled in the facts and circumstances of the case.”

3. The petitioner has claimed that he was appointed on 27.01.1991, but, the same has been denied by the respondents in their counter affidavit stating therein that date of appointment of the petitioner on the post of Constable in B.M.P.-9, Jamalpur is 18.01.1991 and thereafter the petitioner was posted at different places. The petitioner was dismissed from service during training period with effect from 18.04.1993 after holding departmental proceeding against him. Against the dismissal order, the petitioner had preferred CWJC No.9266 of 1997 before this Court. This Court vide order dated 12.08.2010 quashed the dismissal order and as a consequence of that, the petitioner was reinstated in service on 16.03.2012 on the post of constable. The petitioner has claimed that petitioner is entitled for salary from 18.04.1993 till the date of his reinstatement on 16.03.2012. In other words, he is claiming salary for total period of 18 years. The case of the petitioner for claim of salary has been rejected on the principle of no work no pay.

SUBMISSIONS:

4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has not been dismissed from service for his own fault and this Court in CWJC No.9266 of 1997 has held that there was no evidence against the petitioner of having broken/opened the locks of the boxes of other constables and stealing money, nor it was clearly established that he was illegally or unauthorizedly staying in the barrack and was part of merry making. This Court had taken into consideration that two kind of punishment came to be imposed in an identical situation in respect of Binod Gond and in whose case, the authority has imposed lesser punishment of withholding increment with cumulative effect for two years amounting to three black marks. The writ petition was allowed directing the respondents to pass any order of punishment keeping in mind the kind of punishment which has been imposed on Binod Gond, holding that the punishment of dismissal to be disproportionate to the misconduct alleged. Learned counsel submitted that in compliance of order dated 12.08.2010 passed in CWJC No.9266 of 1997, the petitioner was reinstated in service and thereafter his salary was fixed with effect from 01.01.1996 and the same was also revised from time to time. The grievance of the petitioner is that he is entitled for salary from the date he was illegally dismissed from service till the date of his reinstatement in service. He further submitted that the denial of any pay for a period of 18 years is itself penal in nature and the petitioner being innocent deserves to be paid salary for the aforesaid period. In this regard, learned counsel has relied upon a judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Pradeep, S/o Rajkumar Jain vs. Manganese Ore (India) Limited & others, reported in 2022 (3) SCC 683, specially paragraphs no.14, 15 and 16 thereof.

5. Per contra, Mr. Mithilesh Kumar Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents submitted that it is admitted that the petitioner was dismissed from service and he is claiming salary