JUDGMENT

W.P(C) No.214 of 2020 has been filed by the petitioner, Mutum Shanti Kumar Singh, seeking to quash the order dated 09.5.2019 issued by the fifth respondent, DIGP, Group Centre, as the same was issued in violation of FR 54- A(1), (ii) and (3) of the Fundamental Rules and to direct the respondents to regularize the period of absence with effect from 30.8.2000 till the date of reporting duty and to pay the entitled pay and allowance for the period of suspension i.e. from 13.4.2000 till his date of reporting duty.

2. W.P(C) No.215 of 2020 has been filed by the petitioner, Chabungbam Bison Singh, seeking to quash the order date 13.7.2019 issued by the 6th respondent, the Commandant, 27 Bn CRPF, as the same was issued in violation of FR 54-A(1),(ii) and (3) of the Fundamental Rules and to direct the respondents to regularize the period of absence with effect from 12.3.2007 till his date of reinstatement dated 13.11.2018 and to pay the entitled pay and allowances for the period from 12.3.2007 till his date of reporting duty.

3. Since the issue involved in both petitions is one and same, they were taken up together and disposed of by this common order.

4. The case of the petitioner in W.P(C) No.214 of 2020 is that the DIGP, Group Centre, without applying his mind and contrary to the stand taken in W.P.(C) No.88 of 2013 and pending disciplinary proceedings issued the impugned order dated 09.5.2019 fixing the pay of the petitioner by applying dies-non as “no work no pay” for the period 30.8.2000 to 20.11.2011 as a penalty. According to the petitioner, it is clear that the DIGP, Group Centre has issued the order impugned before the conclusion of the departmental enquiry and it cannot decide the fixation of pay and cannot forfeit arrears of the petitioner by violating FR 54-A(1),(ii) and (3) of the Fundamental Rules. In fact, by the order dated 27.7.2000 in W.A.No.30 of 2005, the Hon’ble Division Bench of the Imphal Bench of Gauhati High Court clearly held that if fresh departmental proceedings is held against the petitioner, he shall be treated as under suspension from the date of the first suspension and if no such enquiry is held within the prescribed period, the petitioner is to be reinstated to his service and appropriate order shall be passed by the concerned authority regarding his entitlements under the law. While so, contrary to the said direction, the DIGP, Group Centre, issued the impugned order and hence, the petitioner has filed the writ petition challenging the same.

5. Similarly, the case of the petitioner in W.P. (C) No.215 of 2020 is that the impugned order dated 13.7.2019 was issued not in compliance with the order of this Court as well as the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the question of settlement of regularisation of the service of the petitioner during the period of absence following reinstatement has to be done in strict compliance of the provisions of FR 54-A(1),(ii) and (3) of the Fundamental Rules. However, in contravention of the statutory provisions of the Fundamental Rules, the Commandant, 27 Bn CRPF, issued the impugned order, which is arbitrary. Hence, the petitioner has filed the writ petition seeking to quash the same and to direct the respondent authorities to regularise the period of absence w.e.f. 12.3.2007 till his date of reinstatement dated 13.11.2018 and to pay the entitled pay and allowances.

6. The respondents in W.P.No.214 of 2020 filed affid