The 'no work no pay' rule does not apply when the employee is kept away from work due to the illegal and arbitrary actions of the department. In such cases, the employee is entitled to benefits for the period of absence.

JUDGMENT

Harsimran Singh Sethi, J. (Oral) - The grievance of the petitioner in the present writ petition is that though he has been reinstated in service by the respondents, no benefit for the period when he remained out of service has been paid to him and his request for the refixation of his salary by granting him increments for the period he remained out of service along with arrears by treating the said period as duty period has been wrongly rejected by the respondents vide impugned order dated 19.11.2019 (Annexure P-9).

2. The factual matrix, which has led to the filing of the present writ petition, is as under: -

"Petitioner was initially appointed as a Constable in the Punjab Police on 22.04.1994 and was allocated District SAS Nagar, Mohali. In the year 2011, the petitioner was promoted as a Head Constable (PR). On 17.12.2012, the petitioner was on duty in a PCR along with one Punjab Home Guard official when an FIR was registered against him at Police Station Phase-11 being FIR No. 115 dated 17.12.2012 under Section 384 of the IPC and Section 7 & 13(1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Thereafter, without waiting for any process of investigation to be undertaken by the authorities in respect of allegations alleged in the FIR No.115 dated 17.12.2012, the Senior Superintendent of Police, SAS Nagar, Mohali, immediately dismissed the petitioner on the very same day i.e. 17.12.2012 by invoking the powers under Article 311(2)(b) of the Constitution of India read with Clause 16.1 of the Punjab Police Rules and Section 7 of the Punjab Police Act, 1861. Later on, the police after investigation, filed an untraced report in FIR No.115 dated 17.12.2012, as no evidence had come against the petitioner with regard to the allegations alleged in the FIR. After going through the investigation done by the police, the said untraced report was accepted by the learned Judge, Special Court, SAS Nagar, Mohali on 12.09.2017. On the acceptance of the untraced report, petitioner stood exonerated of the allegations alleged against him in the FIR.

Immediately upon being exonerated from the allegations as alleged in the FIR No.115 dated 17.12.2012, which were the basis of his dismissal from service, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Director General of Police, Punjab, for setting aside the order dated 17.12.2012, dismissing him from service and for his reinstatement in service with consequential benefits. Said request remained pending for a long period, ultimately the appeal/representation filed by the petitioner was accepted by the Director General of Police and an order was issued on 12.10.2018 (Annexure P-4) reinstating the petitioner in service. The order of reinstatement carried a condition that a departmental enquiry into the allegations which were part of the FIR No.115 dated 17.12.2012 will be conducted. Keeping in view the order passed by the Director General of Police dated 12.10.2018 (P-4), the competent authority i.e. SSP, SAS Nagar, Mohali issued an order reinstating the petitioner on 15.10.2018 (Annexure P-5) and also ordered initiation of the departmental proceedings against the petitioner. Keeping in view the orders passed by the authorities concerned, petitioner was reinstated in service and started discharging his duties. It will be relevant to note here that at the time when the petitioner was dismissed from service in the year 2012, his basic pay was ?12,050/- with grade pay of ?3200/- and the same pay was given to him upon his reinstatement in October, 2018.

The charges alleged in the charge-sheet, which was issued to the petitioner upon his reinstatement on 20.10.2018, were enquired into by the respondents by appointing an inquiry officer and after holding the due inquiry, inquiry report, which was submitted by the inquiry officer, exonerated the petitioner from the charges and as per the inquiry report, none of the charges alleged against the petitioner were proved. Agreeing with the said report, the disciplinary a