Heard Mr. Ng. Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Md. Jalalluddin, learned Addl.G.A. appearing on behalf of the Government respondents. 2. This writ petition has been filed praying mainly for quashing the portions of the orders being No.25(30)/R-III/02 dated 1.2.03 passed by the Dy. Inspector of Police (Range-III), Bishenpur, and the order being No.B/1/17(III)/SP-CCP/03, dated 10.2.03 issued by the Superintendent of Police, Churachandpur, as a consequence of which though he was re-instated to his former post of constable, he was not allowed to get increments for three years w.e.f. 27.10.94 as well as his pays and allowances from 27.10.94 to 9.2.2003. 3. There is no dispute in respect of the following facts: the petitioner is a constable of the Manipur Police Department and in the month of July, 1994, he was detailed as one of the members of the Residential Guards cum-Escort of the Dy.Commissioner, Churachandpur. In the night between 17.7.94 and 18.7.94, during the absence of the petitioner, some armed persons snatched away five .303 Rifles and 250 rounds of ammunitions from the Guards of the Dy.Commissioner, Churachandpur. In contemplation of a departmental enquiry for dereliction of duty resulting in the loss of five .303 Rifles and 250 rounds of ammunitions, the petitioner was placed under suspension, vide order No.3-2/8/SP- CCP/94 dated 18.7.94 passed by the S.P. Churachandpur. A departmental enquiry was ordered. After completion of the departmental enquiry, the petitioner was dismissed from service w.e.f. 27.10.94 vide order No.B-2/26/SP-CCP/94 dated 27.10.94 of the SP, Churachandpur. The petitioner preferred an appeal against the said order of dismissal to the D.G.P. Manipur. The appeal was dealt with by the Dy.I.G.P(Range-III), Bishenpur and disposed of the same by passing the impugned order dated 1.2.2003. Annexure-A/4 of the writ petition is a copy of the said impugned order. The S.P. Churachandpur issued the impugned order dated 10.2.03 by way of giving effect to the impugned order dated 1.2.03. Annexure-A/5 of the writ petition is a copy of the impugned order dated 10.2.03. 4. For convenience in appreciating the case of the petitioner, the impugned order dated 1.2.03 (Annexure-A/4)of the writ petition is reproduced below: “Orders by the Dy.Inspector General of Police(Range-III) Bishnupur The Ist Feb., 2003. No.25(30)/R-III/2002 : Whereas D.E.No.10/94 dated 18.7.94 was proceeded against the Ex. Annexure-A/5 of the writ petition is a copy of the impugned order dated 10.2.03. 4. For convenience in appreciating the case of the petitioner, the impugned order dated 1.2.03 (Annexure-A/4)of the writ petition is reproduced below: “Orders by the Dy.Inspector General of Police(Range-III) Bishnupur The Ist Feb., 2003. No.25(30)/R-III/2002 : Whereas D.E.No.10/94 dated 18.7.94 was proceeded against the Ex. P.C. No.9 10 20 12 Shri S. Ibomcha Singh of CCP District Police vide SP/CCP orders B-2/8/SP-CCP/94 dated 18.7.94 and the said P.C. was dismissed from service vide SP/CCP orders No.B-2/26/SP-CCP/94 dated 27.10.94, on the charge of misconduct by not discharging the duty while being posted at the residential guard of DC/CCP, resulting in the loss of 5 nos. of 303 Rifles with 250 rds. Of 303 ammns. In the night of 17.7.94 and 18.7.94. 2. Whereas on perusal of the comments put up by SP/CCP on the appeal of the appellate visa-vis the D.E. file and Service Book of the Ex.P.C., it is transpired that the Ex-PC had left the place of duty on the permission or out-pass granted by the Guard Commander as the sister of the C.P. was reported to be on the death-bed who later on died. It is a fact that the incident took place during his absence on out-pass. 3. Whereas the Ex.P.C. left his place of duty on extreme compassionate ground to see the last glimpse of his dying sister which does not amount to deliberate act and the departmental enquiry does not mention whether the service arms issued to the appellant was among the arms snatched/looted. 4. Whereas it is a fact that no copy of the inquiry report of the inquiry officer was furnished to the Ex.P.C. violating the principle of natural justice as he was not given a reasonable opportunity to defend his case. 5. Whereas the lost arms and ammunitions have also been returned by the Kuki militants who snatched the weapons. 6. Whereas if the appellant go to the Court it is very likely that the Court may embrass the police Department with all the back wages to be paid. 7. Whereas the loss of a train-hand depletes the already understaffed of the District Police Force of Churachandpur and imparting training to a raw hand involves a huge amount of money and time. 7. Whereas the loss of a train-hand depletes the already understaffed of the District Police Force of Churachandpur and imparting training to a raw hand involves a huge amount of money and time. It is, therefore, decided to consider the appeal of the appellant and to review the orders of dismissal passed by the SP/CCP as cited herein above on the grounds furnished above. Therefore, I(M.A. Rahman Shah, IPS), Dy. Inspector General of Police(Range-III) as empowered under Assam Police Manual Part-III Rule 66(vi) set aside the impugned orders of the SP/CCP No.B-2/26/SP-CCP/94 dated 27.10.94 and award the Ex.P.C. with the punishment of stoppage of increment for 3 years to take effect from 27.10.94 and re-instate Ex.P.C. No.9102012 Shri S. Ibomcha Singh to his former post of Const. and shall report for duty to SP/CCP immediately. With the order in place the period from the date of dismissal i.e. 27.10.94 to the date of re-instatement i.e. 27.1.2003 is regulated as under: i) From 27.10.94 to 27.10.98 i.e. 4 years is treated as spent on Earned leave without pay. ii) From 28.10.98 to 1.2.03 is treated as E.O.L. iii) The pensionary benefit is kept in tact. Sd/(M.A.Rahman Shah,IPS) Dy.I.G.of Police (Range-III) Bishnupur.” 5. As observed above, the impugned order dated 10.2.03 (Annexure-A/5) was passed by the SP/Churachandpur by way of giving effect to the impugned order dated 1.2.03 (Annexure-A/4). 6. The petitioner is aggrieved that even though he was in effect exonerated of the charge of misconduct by the appellate authority in connection with the said occurrence of taking away of 5 nos. of 303 Rifles with 250 rounds of ammunitions, he was not allowed to get his increments for three years as well as his pay and allowances for the period from 27.10.94 to 9.2.03. According to the petitioner's counsel, the portions of the impugned orders dated 1.2.03 and 10.2.03 regarding stoppage of increments for three years and withholding/non payment of pays and allowances for the period from 27.10.94 to 9.2.03 are illegal and as such the said portions are liable to be quashed. 7. On perusal of the impugned order dated 1.2.03, it is ascertained that as per findings of the appellate authority, on the day of the occurrence, the petitioner was not present at the place of his duty at the relevant time as he had gone to see his dying sister after taking permission from his Guard Commander. 7. On perusal of the impugned order dated 1.2.03, it is ascertained that as per findings of the appellate authority, on the day of the occurrence, the petitioner was not present at the place of his duty at the relevant time as he had gone to see his dying sister after taking permission from his Guard Commander. Further, according to the appellate authority, there was no deliberate act on the part of the petitioner in connection with the occurrence. There was also nothing to show that any of the arms issued to the petitioner was among the arms taken away in the occurrence. No copy of the inquiry report of the Enquiry Officer was furnished to the petitioner thereby violating the principles of natural justice regarding giving a reasonable opportunity to defend his case. The findings of the appellate authority was to the effect that the petitioner was not to be blamed about the occurrence. Since the findings of the appellate authority was that the petitioner had gone to some other place on the day of the occurrence after taking permission from his officer, in the absence of any other facts and circumstances showing otherwise, he was not in any way connected with the occurrence and as such there was no basis for holding the charge of misconduct having proved or established. I am of the view that the appellate authority fully exonerated the petitioner in respect of the said charge of misconduct. 8. In view of the exoneration of the petitioner in respect of the charge, there was no basis for imposing any penalty upon him. However, the appellate authority, while setting aside the dismissal order passed against the petitioner and ordering for his re-instatement, inter alia, imposed the penalty of stoppage of increments for three years w.e.f. 27.10.94. The imposition of the said penalty even after fully exoneration of the petitioner in respect of the charge is illegal and it is not sustainable in the eye of law. The portion of the impugned order dated 1.2.03 passed by the appellate authority regarding imposition of the said penalty and the portion of the impugned order dated 10.2.03 issued by the SP/Churachandpur for giving effect to the said order of the appellate authority are liable to be quashed. 9. The portion of the impugned order dated 1.2.03 passed by the appellate authority regarding imposition of the said penalty and the portion of the impugned order dated 10.2.03 issued by the SP/Churachandpur for giving effect to the said order of the appellate authority are liable to be quashed. 9. Regarding withholding/non payment of pay and allowances for the period from 27.10.94 to 9.2.03, i.e. for the period of petitioner's absence from duty, it is for the concerned authority to pass the appropriate order having regards to the provisions of rule 54 of the Fundamental Rules. In the present case, on consideration of the portions of the impugned orders dated 1.2.03 and 10.2.03 directing for treating the period from 27.10.94 to 27.10.98 as on Earned leave without pay and the period from 28.10.98 to 1.2.03 as E.O.L., and having regards to the provisions of rule 54 of the Fundamental Rule, it is ascertained that the said portions of the impugned orders were passed without applying the provisions of rule 54 of Fundamental Rule. Even though the petitioner was exonerated of the charge, the period of his absence from duty was not treated as a period spent on duty. There is nothing to show as to why and how and under what provision of law, the period from 27.10.94 to 27.10.94 was treated as spent on Earned leave without pay and the period of 28.10.98 to 1.2.03 was treated as E.O.L. In the light of the above considerations, I am of the opinion that the said portions of the impugned orders dated 1.2.03 and 10.2.03 were passed by the concerned authorities without application of their minds and without having regards to the relevant provision of rule 54 of Fundamental Rule. The said portions of the impugned orders are, in my opinion, not based on valid relevant principles and while passing them, the authorities were apparently guided by extraneous or irrelevant consideration. The said portions of the impugned orders were, thus, passed arbitrarily and thereby in violation of Art.14 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, the said portions of the impugned orders are not sustainable in the eye of law. 10. Mr. Jalalluddin, learned Addl. The said portions of the impugned orders were, thus, passed arbitrarily and thereby in violation of Art.14 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, the said portions of the impugned orders are not sustainable in the eye of law. 10. Mr. Jalalluddin, learned Addl. G.A. draws this Court's attention to the decisions of the Supreme Court in the State of Punjab & Ors -Vs-Krishan Niwas, (1997)9 SCC 31 , Sanat Kumar Dwividi -Vs- Dhar Jila Saha Kari Bhoomi Vikas Bank Maryadit & Ors, (2001)9 SCC 402 and submits that since the petitioner was re-instated in service with the conditions that there would be stoppage of increments for three years w.e.f. 27.10.94 and that the period from 27.10.94 to 27.10.98 would be treated as spent on earned leave without pay and that the period from 28.10.98 to 1.2.03 would be treated as E.O.L., when he joined to his post of constable, he accepted the conditions mentioned in the order for re-instatement and as such it is not open to him to challenge the orders subsequently. On perusal of the above said decisions, I find that the facts and circumstances of the said cases are not similar to the facts and circumstances of the present case. In the present case, the appellate authority fully exonerated the petitioner of the said charge of misconduct and as such there was no basis for imposing any penalty. No reason is disclosed in the impugned orders as to why despite exoneration of the petitioner in respect of the charge, any penalty should be imposed upon him. Since the said portions of the impugned orders for stoppage of increments for three years and for treating the period of absence of the petitioner as on earned leave without pay etc. are illegal, merely on accepting the portions of the impugned orders for re-instatement, the petitioner cannot be barred from challenging the legality or otherwise of the said other portions. There cannot be estoppels in respect of question of law. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, the order of re-instatement of the petitioner cannot be considered as conditional on his acceptance of stoppage of increments for three years and non payment of pay and allowances for the period of his absence from duty. There cannot be estoppels in respect of question of law. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, the order of re-instatement of the petitioner cannot be considered as conditional on his acceptance of stoppage of increments for three years and non payment of pay and allowances for the period of his absence from duty. In my considered opinion, the ratio of the decision of the above two cases before the Supreme Court will not be applicable in the present case. 11. In the result, having regards to all the relevant considerations, the said portions of the impugned orders concerning the imposition of penalty of stoppage of increments for three years w.e.f. 27.10.94 and regarding for treating the period from 27.10.94 to 27.10.98 and from 28.10.98 to 1.2.03 on leave without pay are not sustainable in the eye of law. Accordingly, the concerned appellate authority shall pass an appropriate order by reviewing the above said patently illegal portions of the impugned order dated 1.2.03 and the respondent No.3 shall issue necessary and consequential order on the basis of the said order of the appellate authority. The whole exercise is to be completed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. 12. This disposes of the writ petition. No costs.