JUDGMENT :

1. Heard the parties.

2. Petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer for direction to the respondent No. 2 to pay the full salary to the petitioner from 31.08.1998 to 19.06.2017 i.e. the date when the petitioner was dismissed from service till the date of reinstatement.

Petitioner has further prayer for quashing the part of order dated 26.06.2017, passed by respondent no. 2, whereby the salary for the period i.e. from 31.08.1998 to 19.06.2017 has not been denied to the petitioner on the ground of ‘no work no pay’.

3. As per the factual matrix, when the petitioner was posted as Constable in the district of Gumla, a memo of charge was framed against him and he was put under suspension. Thereafter, a departmental proceeding was initiated and the enquiry officer submitted his report on 09.07.1998 holding the petitioner guilty of the charges levelled against him. On the basis of enquiry report, the disciplinary authority directed the petitioner to submit the last defence as to why he should not be dismissed from service, as is evident from letter dated 20.07.1998. The disciplinary authority dismissed the petitioner from service and said decision was communicated to the petitioner by memo dated 11.09.1998. The petitioner having no option left, preferred an appeal before the Deputy Inspector General of Police, South Chotanagpur Range, Ranchi on 27.09.1999, however, the said appeal was also rejected by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, by memo dated 10.03.2004.

4. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred writ petition being W.P.(S). No. 423 of 2010 and this Court vide judgment dated 21.04.2017 quashed the penalty order as well as appellate order. Thereafter, the petitioner represented before the respondent No. 2 on 02.05.2017. Upon his representation, the final order was passed on 26.06.2017, whereby though the petitioner has been reinstated in service but the salary for the period running from 31.08.1998 to 19.06.2017 has been denied to the petitioner on the ground of ‘no work no pay’. Thereafter, the petitioner joined his service immediately but the facts remains that the salary for the period running from 31.08.1998 to 19.06.2017 has not been paid to the petitioner.

Hence, this writ petition has been filed by the petitioner.

5. Mr. Manoj Tandon, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner assiduously urges that once the dismissal order was set aside by this Court and the petitioner has been reinstated in service by the respondents, the petitioner is entitled for the payment of salary for the period running from 31.08.1998 to 19.06.2017 i.e. the date of dismissal till the date of reinstatement. Learned counsel further argues that the part of the impugned order whereby the salary for the interregnum period has been denied to the petitioner is fit to be quashed and set aside on the ground that the petitioner was not in gainful employment during that period. The petitioner has been ordered to be reinstated in service, the respondents are duty bound to pay the salary to the petitioner from the date of dismissal till the date of reinstatement. Learned counsel further argues that the impugned order to the extent that the petitioner has been denied salary for the aforesaid period is violative of Articles 14 and 300-A of the Constitution of India.

6. Per contra, counter-affidavit has been filed. Mr. Achyut Keshav, learned counsel appearing for the respondents vehemently opposes the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that charge has been constituted on the ground of absconding of the petitioner from the duty without information or leave application, which amounts to misconduct. The charges levelled against the petitioner has also been proved in the departmental proceeding and thereafter, after providing opportunity to the petitioner to present his case, the order of punishment has been inflicted against the petitioner. Learned counsel further argues that the petitioner was absent from his