IMPORTANT POINT
A reinstated government servant who has been fully exonerated is entitled to full pay and allowances for the period of absence due to wrongful dismissal, as per Rule 54(2) of the Financial Handbook.

JUDGMENT :

Hon'ble Salil Kumar Rai, J.

1. The petition involves a question of law and is being decided on the facts stated in the orders passed by the state officers impleaded as respondents in the present petition, therefore, no purpose would be served calling for a counter affidavit.

2. The petitioner is employed as Follower with the U.P Police. Disciplinary proceedings were instituted against the petitioner under Rule 14 of the Uttar Pradesh Police Officers of the Subordinate Ranks (Punishment and Appeal) Rules 1991 (hereinafter referred to as, 'Rules, 1991') and a charge sheet dated 29.8.2018 was served on the petitioner. The charge against the petitioner was that the petitioner, without informing his Officers and without any leave, absented from duty between 24.6.2018 and 26.6.2018. Another charge against the petitioner was that after joining the petitioner went on a hunger strike and refused to resume his mess duty which adversely affected the reputation of the police force.

3. The petitioner submitted his reply denying the charges. The inquiry report was submitted on 5.9.2018 holding the petitioner guilty of the charges levelled against him. A show cause notice dated 11.7.2019 was issued to the petitioner to show cause as to why he should not be dismissed from service. After considering the reply of the petitioner to the show cause notice, the disciplinary authority i.e., the Superintendent of Police, District Deoria (respondent no.3) vide his order dated 9.1.2020 dismissed the petitioner from service.

4. The petitioner challenged the order dated 9.1.2020 through an appeal filed under Rule 20 of the Rules 1991. The said appeal was allowed by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Gorakhpur Region, Gorakhpur vide his order dated 4.9.2020. Through his order dated 4.9.2020, the appellate authority exonerated the petitioner of the charges levelled against him. Consequently, by order dated 29.9.2020 passed by the Superintendent of Police, District Deoria, the petitioner was reinstated in service.

5. The Superintendent of Police, District Deoria issued notice dated 18.1.2024 to the petitioner to show cause as to why his services for the period the petitioner was out of service i.e., between 9.1.2020 to 29.9.2020, be not regularised without payment of salary on the principle of ‘no work no pay’. The notice was ostensibly issued under Rule 73 of the Financial Handbook Volume-II Part II to IV.

6. The petitioner submitted his reply to the aforesaid show cause notice stating that the petitioner was out of service between 9.1.2020 to 29.9.2020 because of the order dated 9.1.2020 which had been set aside in appeal, therefore, the petitioner was entitled to his salary and other benefits for the aforesaid period.

7. By his order dated 11.2.2024, the Superintendent of Police, District Deoria has directed that the petitioner shall not be paid his salary for the period during which he was out of service because of the dismissal order, i.e., for the period between 9.1.2020 to 29.9.2020. The order has been passed on the principle of ‘no work no pay’. In his order dated 11.2.2024, the Superintendent of Police, District Deoria has denied salary to the petitioner for the period he was out of service on the ground that the acts of the petitioner for which he had been charged were acts of gross negligence and amounted to dereliction of duty and therefore, the petitioner was not entitled to salary for the period he was out of service. The order dated 11.2.2024 has been challenged in the present petition.

8. There is nothing on record and a reading of the dismissal order dated 9.1.2020 as well as the order dated 11.2.2024 do not show that the petitioner was any time under suspension during the pendency of disciplinary proceedings.

9. For reasons to be stated subsequently the order dated 11.2.2024 is contrary to law and liable to be quashed.

10. A reading of the appellate order dated 4.9.2020 passed by the appellate authority shows that the petitioner had b