JUDGMENT :

SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI, J.

1. The present two appeals have been preferred against the judgment and order dated 05.03.2021 passed in WP(C)/56(AP)/2015. While the WA/8(AP)/2021 has been preferred by the State of Arunachal Pradesh challenging the direction for reinstatement of the writ petitioner in service, WA/10(AP)/2021 has been preferred by the writ petitioner against the refusal of the learned Single Judge to the prayer for payment of back wages. Both the appeals being heard together, are disposed of by this common judgment and order.

2. Before coming to the issues which would call for a determination, it would be convenient to put on record the brief facts.

3. The writ petitioner was working as an Assistant (U/S) in the Police Head Quarters (PHQ) at Itanagar and in course of her employment, she was attached as Cashier in the office of the Superintendent of Police, Chimpu for the period January to December, 2009. While working in the said capacity, the authorities, at the time of audit in the year 2011, could detect major anomalies with regard to certain deposits. Accordingly, two numbers of FIRs were lodged - the first one was with regard to failure on the part of the writ petitioner to deposit VAT/Entry Tax in the Government account amounting to Rs. 25,42,082/-. In the second FIR, the allegation was that though the petitioner had made an entry in the Cash Book regarding payment of an amount of Rs. 2,29,673/- to a Firm, namely, M/s. Arunachal Agency House, such payment was never actually received by the said Firm. Simultaneously, two departmental proceedings were also initiated against the writ petitioner and she was put under suspension. It is the case of the writ petitioner that the allegations in the two departmental proceedings were same as made in the two FIRs which led to registration of Itanagar PS Case Nos. 183/2011 and 184/2011. Further, without waiting for the result of the criminal cases, the departmental proceedings were completed culminating in the order dated 18.09.2014 by which the writ petitioner was dismissed from service. The writ petitioner had unsuccessfully preferred a departmental appeal which was rejected vide order dated 13.01.2015.

4. The writ petitioner, then instituted WP(C)/56(AP)/2015 challenging the order of dismissal from her service as well as the order passed by the Appellate Authority. During the pendency of the writ petition, Itanagar PS Case No. 183/2011 culminated in a Final Report dated 25.05.2016. The aforesaid writ petition came up for consideration and the Hon’ble Single Judge, vide the judgment and order dated 05.03.2021 had allowed the same by directing reinstatement of the writ petitioner in her service. However, her claim for back wages was rejected. While the State is aggrieved by the direction to reinstate the petitioner in her service and has preferred WA/8(AP)/2021, thewrit petitioner is aggrieved by rejection of her claim for back wages and has preferred WA/10(AP)/2021 against the impugned judgment dated 05.03.2021.

5. We have heard Shri S. Tapin, learned Senior Government Advocate, AP for the appellants in WA/8(AP)/2021, who has also represented respondents in WA/10(AP)/2021. Correspondingly, Shri I. Choudhury, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Shri S. Biswakarma, learned counsel represented the writ petitioner in both the appeals. The materials produced before this Court have been carefully examined.

6. Shri Tapin, the learned Sr. Government Advocate has submitted that the very basis of passing the impugned judgment is erroneous. Reliance has been placed upon the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of M. Paul Anthony vs. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd. (1999) 3 SCC 679. It is submitted that neither the charges in the criminal cases and the departmental proceedings are the same nor the manner in which the charges are required to be proved. It is submitted that even the witnesses are not the same. By drawing the attention of this Court to the averments made in par