The petitioner was entitled to backwages for the non-working period, except for the period when he pursued a law degree and practiced law. The Court directed the respondents to calculate the backwages with interest and deposit the amount to the Bar Council for Tamil Nadu and Puducherry for the welfare of young and needy lawyers.

JUDGMENT :

R. SURESH KUMAR, J.

Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for Writs of Certiorarified Mandamus, call for the records relating to the order passed by the 5th respondent dated 17.03.2018 in is Order No. 3703/RTC(A)CISF/2nd (B)SI/EXE(LDCE)/ Trg/2018/3800 and the consequential order of the 6th respondent in his order No. E-14014/CISF/RTC(A)/SI/Exe(LDCE)/Trg/18/5875 dated 04.05.2018 and quash the same in so far as the portion of the order relating to the backwages and to direct the respondents to pay backwages from 09.01.2012 to 28.03.2018 and to disburse the benefits as per the representation of the petitioner dated 23.04.2018 to the petitioner together with interest and thus render justice.

1. The prayer sought for herein is for issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus, to quash the order passed by the 5th respondent dated 17.03.2018 in its order No. 3703/RTC(A)CISF/2nd (B)SI/EXE(LDCE)/Trg/2018/3800 and the consequential order of the 6th respondent in his Order No. E-14014/CISF/RTC(A)/SI/Exe(LDCE)/Trg/18/5875 dated 04.05.2018 in so far as the portion of the order relating to the backwages and to direct the respondents to pay backwages from 09.01.2012 to 28.03.2018 and to disburse the benefits as per the representation of the petitioner dated 23.04.2018 to the petitioner together with interest.

2. The petitioner joined in the Central Industrial Security Force [in short ‘CISF’] as constable on 01.08.1999 at Chennai. Thereafter, he worked in various places till 2011. In the year 2011, there was a competitive examination for in-service candidates like the petitioner for the post of Sub-Inspector of Police in the same force and in the said competitive examination, which was written by the petitioner, he has become successful. Therefore, he was selected and appointed as Sub-Inspector of Police by order dated 08.10.2011.

3. Subsequently, he was on training, however, during training, on 09.01.2012 he was terminated from service.

4. Though the said termination was made based on certain allegations against the petitioner and since he was in training period, it seems that no enquiry was conducted by initiating any disciplinary proceedings. However, challenging the said order of the respondents dated 09.01.2012 terminating the service of the petitioner from the post of Sub-Inspector of Police, the petitioner has moved this Court by filing a writ petition in W.P. (MD) No. 817 of 2012. The said writ petition came to be disposed of by a learned single Judge of this Court by order dated 20.09.2017.

5. In the said decision, the learned Judge has allowed the writ petition with the following terms:

“12. Although several grounds have been raised while assailing the impugned order of termination, but this Court is of the view that the termination being founded on the basis of certain allegations against the petitioner and no opportunity had been afforded to the petitioner for disproving such allegations, the termination is per se bad in law and cannot be sustained. Even otherwise, it has to be seen, as narrated above, that the authority with a mala-fide intention slapped the order of termination on the petitioner without spelling out any reason. In the said circumstances, this Court has no hesitation in allowing the writ petition. The impugned order dated 09.01.2012 cannot be sustained under any circumstances and therefore the same is set aside. The respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioner as Sub Inspector (Executive) within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

13. The writ petition stands allowed on the above terms. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.”

6. As against the order passed by the Writ Court, the respondents CISF filed an intra-court appeal in W.A. No. 307 of 2018, which was also came to disposed of by a Division Bench of this Court by order dated 07.02.2018, whereby the Division Bench, having confirmed the order passed by t