Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 868 (GAU)

Sanjib Adhikari v. State of Arunachal Pradesh

2008-12-23

AMITAVA ROY

body2008
JUDGMENT Amitava Roy, J. 1. The Petitioner seeks the intervention of this Court in exercise of its extra ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to facilitate the release of his services entitlements perceived to be arbitrarily withheld by the Respondents, subjecting him as well to unwarranted harassments rendering him physically and mentally incapable of discharging his duties. 2. I have heard Mr. A.S. Bhattacharjee, Sr. Advocate assisted by Mr. K. Paul, Advocate for the Petitioner and Mr. L. Tenzing, Government Advocate, Arunachal Pradesh for the Respondents. 3. The instant proceeding in praesenti is the last in the series of such pursuit by the Petitioner before this Court. He set on his career under the Respondents as Sub-Inspector (Traffic) in Arunachal Pradesh Police on 27.11.1991 and after being transferred to various places in the States of Assam and Arunachal Pradesh was eventually posted to Pasighat on 1.7.2001. He was by order dated 24.6.1997 placed under suspension for his alleged involvement in Itanagar P.S. Case No. 87/97 under Sections 409/408/34 IPC in connection with which he had to approach this Court more than once to ensure payments of his subsistence allowance. In one of such petitions being W.R. (C) 121(PS)/2001, this Court by order dated 5.1.2001 directed the Respondents not to discharge him from service and disburse the subsistence allowance @ 50% of his pay. As neither his subsistence allowance was paid nor the order of suspension was withdrawn, he instituted W.P. (C) 997 (PS)/2001 seeking annulment of the said order and consequential reinstatement in service. In the said proceeding as well, this Court by order dated 19.2.2001 while issuing notice in the interim ordered release of the subsistence allowance. A direction to provide him security to enable him to report to the appropriate authority for the said purpose was also issued. The challenge to the order of suspension was initiated by the Petitioner as in the meantime, he had been acquitted of the charges in the aforementioned police case. 4. As the orders for payment of subsistence allowance remained unattended, the Petitioner approached this Court with an application for contempt whereafter an amount of Rs. 66,179/- was defrayed to him on that count. The Respondents also by letter dated 20.07.2001 issued by the Superintendent of Police, East Siang District, Pashighat, asked him to report at his establishment. 4. As the orders for payment of subsistence allowance remained unattended, the Petitioner approached this Court with an application for contempt whereafter an amount of Rs. 66,179/- was defrayed to him on that count. The Respondents also by letter dated 20.07.2001 issued by the Superintendent of Police, East Siang District, Pashighat, asked him to report at his establishment. According to the Petitioner, he accordingly presented himself before the Inspector General of Police at Itanagar on 20.8.2001. However, while returning therefrom he was intercepted by two persons travelling in a Maruti Gypsy vehicle and after coaxing him to board it, forcibly obtained his signature on three blank papers at the point of a revolver, threatening him at the same time to withdraw the contempt case against the Superintendent of Police and others within a week. The Petitioner has alleged that he was severely assaulted by these persons for which he had to be admitted in the emergency ward of the Government Hospital at North Lakhimpur on the very same date. On an FIR being lodged on the incident, Itanagar P.S. Case No. 148/01 was registered under Sections365/323/506/34 IPC on 5.9.2001. 5. While the Petitioner was under treatment, nursing his injuries in a distressful financial condition for non-payment of the subsistence allowance an ex-parte departmental enquiry was conducted against him leading to an order of dismissal from service on 8.2.2002. Being aggrieved, he approached this Court with W.R (C) 300 (AP)/2002 assailing the order of dismissal and praying for a direction to allow him to go on disability pension on the basis of a certificate dated issued by a Medical Board of the North Bengal Medical College. Darjeeling. 6. In the affidavit filed by the Respondents, it was inter alia asserted that though in the meantime the order of suspension had been revoked on 27.11.2001 with a direction to him to resume his duties at Pasighat, he failed to do so without any justification and, therefore, following a departmental enquiry, he had been dismissed from service. It was also pleaded that the balance of the subsistence allowance payable to him was lying undisbursed in the establishment of the Superintendent of Police, Pasighat as the Petitioner had not reported for duty without any intimation, the Respondents referred to five charges enquired into in the departmental proceeding, proof whereof led to the dismissal from service. It was also pleaded that the balance of the subsistence allowance payable to him was lying undisbursed in the establishment of the Superintendent of Police, Pasighat as the Petitioner had not reported for duty without any intimation, the Respondents referred to five charges enquired into in the departmental proceeding, proof whereof led to the dismissal from service. While contending, that the Petitioner had been levelling false allegations against his superior officers in order to squirm out of the charges the answering Respondents resisted his claim for disability pension in the face of his dismissal from service. 7. This Court, on a consideration of the pleadings of the parties left the proceedings of the departmental enquiry uninterfered, holding that it did not suffer from any defect and that the five charges levelled against the Petitioner had been proved. It, however, on a perusal of the certificate of the aforementioned medical board and noticing the finding therein that the Petitioner was locomotorally and mentally handicapped observed that the issue in hand ought to be approached with certain amount of compassion. In this perspective, this Court held that the penalty of dismissal was disproportionate to the charges proved and by its judgment and order passed on 17.9.2003 disposed of the writ petition with the following operative direction. In the facts and circumstances, it is proposed to dispose of this writ petition quashing the order of dismissal with a direction to the Respondent authority to impose any penalty other than dismissal/discharge/termination. Immediate thereafter, on rejoining, the Petitioner shall be sent to the Medical Board for ascertaining his present state of physical and mental capacity for continuance in service. If the report of the Medical Board shows that the Petitioner is not fit for retention in service, his prayer for allowing him to go on disability pension, if permissible under the Rules, shall be ordered. Needless to say, the arrears of subsistence allowance, if any, due to the Petitioner shall be disbursed forthwith. Adequate security as may be necessary should be provided to the writ Petitioner on his rejoining. 8. The Petitioner accordingly on 1.10.2003 submitted his joining letter before the Inspector General of Police, Arunachal Pradesh along with a copy of the judgment and order dated 1.10.2003 whereafter by order dated 22.10.2003 of the Director General of Police, Arunachal Pradesh, he was reinstated in service in the following terms. 1. 8. The Petitioner accordingly on 1.10.2003 submitted his joining letter before the Inspector General of Police, Arunachal Pradesh along with a copy of the judgment and order dated 1.10.2003 whereafter by order dated 22.10.2003 of the Director General of Police, Arunachal Pradesh, he was reinstated in service in the following terms. 1. Shri Sanjib Adhikari is reinstated in service with immediate effect and he is directed to report to the Superintendent of Police, Pasighat for further deployment. 2. The DE file is remitted to DIGP (E) to decide the DE in the light of the order of Hon'ble High Court dated 17.9.2003. 3. On rejoining of Shri Sanjib Adhikari, S.P. Pasighat shall request DMO Pasighat to constitute a Medical Board for ascertaining his present state of physical and mental capacity for his continuance in service. 4. S.P. Pasighat to provide adequate security to Shri Sanjib Adhikari as may be necessary. 9. Subsequent thereto, the Petitioner reported for duty before the Superintendent of Police, East Siang District, Pasighat on 12.2.2004. In the representation, intimating the aforementioned authority of the fact of reporting, he explained the delay and requested for disbursement of his outstanding dues. The Petitioner has alleged that thereafter, he was detailed under a junior officer. Neither his arrear service dues nor his salary, however, was released. Eventually he was asked to appear before a Medical Board to scrutinize his claim for invalid pension. On receipt of the order on 12.4.2004 to the said effect the Petitioner appeared before the said Board on 17.4.2004 as scheduled which after his evaluation and on inspection of the documents produced by him including the aforementioned certificate recommended constitution of another Board with a psychiatrist as one of the members thereof This was purportedly in view of the finding in the certificate of the North Bengal Medical College, Darjeeling that he had been suffering from "refractory depression". According to the Petitioner, this was only a ruse to unfairly deny him the disability pension which considering his permanently handicapped physical state he was entitled in law to receive. 10. It has been averred that thereafter the Respondents did not take the necessary steps to examine the tenability of his claim for the disability pension and instead subjected him and his family members to untold sufferings by resorting to various innovative and agonizing tactics. 10. It has been averred that thereafter the Respondents did not take the necessary steps to examine the tenability of his claim for the disability pension and instead subjected him and his family members to untold sufferings by resorting to various innovative and agonizing tactics. Unable to bear the anguish and Humiliation perpetrated by the Respondents, the Petitioner in a state of penury and helplessness left Pasighat for Siliguri by submitting a leave application on 26.5.2004 addressed to the Superintendent of Police, East Siang District, Pasighat. According to him, thereafter he by subsequent communications sought for extension of leave to which however the Respondents did not respond. They did not take any initiative as well to act in terms of the judgment and order dated 17.9.2003 passed by this Court. His request to the Respondents to post him at Guwahati so as to enable him to avail treatment in the Psychiatric Department of the Gauhati Medical College and Hospital also fell in deaf ears. The Petitioner, therefore, seeks a writ of mandamus requiring Respondents to release an amount of Rs. 28,31,791/- plus his entitlements on account of G.P.F. etc. with interest thereon from 24.6.1997 by way of compensation for a slew of wrongs done to him since then. 11. The Respondents in their counter while affirming that the subsistence allowance for the period of his suspension had been paid to the Petitioner in fad reiterated that his persistent lapses in the matter of reporting for duty had led to the departmental enquiry on the charges enquired into therein leading to his dismissal. The answering Respondents have averred that the allegations of assault and threats on which Itanagar P.S. Case No. 151/2001 had been registered following investigation have been found to be false and that a final report to that effect had been submitted by the Investigating Officer on 30.6.2002 with a request to proceed against him under Section 211 of the IPC. It has been asserted that in compliance of the direction contained in the judgment and order dated 17.9.2003, the Petitioner had been reinstated in service by order dated 22.10.2003 but he belatedly joined in response thereto only on 12.02.2004. It has been asserted that in compliance of the direction contained in the judgment and order dated 17.9.2003, the Petitioner had been reinstated in service by order dated 22.10.2003 but he belatedly joined in response thereto only on 12.02.2004. The Respondents avowed that in terms of the aforementioned judgment, a Medical Board was constituted and the Petitioner having raised a plea before it to be suffering also from psychiatric ailments, it (Board) recommended constitution of another Board with a psychiatrist as one of the members. Accordingly a new Board was constituted with a psychiatrist and the Petitioner was asked to appear before it on 1.6.2004 who instead of doing so abruptly left Pasighat 26.5.2004 and is unauthorisedly absent since then. The answering Respondent maintained that the Petitioner had been paid his duty pay for the period 12.2.2004 to 30.4.2004 following his reinstatement as above. They however admitted to have withheld his pay from 1.5.2004 for his unauthorized absence from duty from 26.5.2004. According to the Respondents, the Petitioner had avoided to appear before the newly constituted Medical Board and that his plea that he is permanently incapable to perform duties and is also a psychiatric patient is not tenable. The Respondents have insisted that the certificate issued by the Medical Board of the North Bengal Medical College, Darjeeling cannot be acted upon and that his psychiatric disorder and or permanent disability, if any, can be determined only by the Medical Board constituted by them. They have asserted that in these circumstances the Petitioner cannot be accepted to be suffering from any disability, mental or physical and, therefore, his claim for disability/invalid pension cannot be acceded to. The Respondents have underlined that the charges levelled against the Petitioner in the earlier disciplinary proceeding had been proved and that it is he who has not complied with the letter and spirit of the decision dated 17.9.2003 of this Court. All allegations made against the Respondents have been stoutly denied. 12. Mr. The Respondents have underlined that the charges levelled against the Petitioner in the earlier disciplinary proceeding had been proved and that it is he who has not complied with the letter and spirit of the decision dated 17.9.2003 of this Court. All allegations made against the Respondents have been stoutly denied. 12. Mr. Bhattacharjee has urged that following the sequence of events unfolded by the pleadings, it being apparent that the Respondents have inexplicably failed to conform to the mandates of the judgment and order dated 17.9.2003, it is a fit case where a writ of mandamus ought to be issued directing them to accept the certificate issued by the Medical Board of the North Bengal Medical College, Darjeeling and allow him to retire from service by granting disability/invalid pension together with all outstanding service entitlements. The Petitioner being permanently physically handicapped beyond recuperation as well as mentally challenged he is incapable to perform his duties and, therefore, it would be in fitness of things that he may relieved of the shackles of service and the lingering woes, he pleaded. 13. Mr. Tenzing in reply has contended that the Petitioner having failed to appear before the Medical Board constituted by the Respondents for necessary examination to analyze his claim for disability/invalid pension, his grievances are misplaced. As the Petitioner is unauthorisedly absent from duties from 26.5.2004, his claim as made is wholly misconceived, he urged. With reference to the official records, Mr. Tenzing has contended that in the meantime in observance of the directions of this Court as contained in the judgment and order dated 17.9.2003, the modified penalty of stoppage of forfeiture of four increments has been imposed on him. Further a disciplinary proceeding for his continued unauthorized absence from duty has also been initiated in which a notice has been issued to the Petitioner furnishing therewith a copy of the enquiry report thereby requiring him to respond to the proposed penalty of his removal from service. As the Petitioner has unjustifiably failed either to act in terms of the judgment and order of this Court or to discharge his duties as expected of a member of the disciplinary force, he is not entitled to any relief what so ever, he argued. 14. I have extended my thoughtful consideration to the rival pleadings and the arguments advanced. As the Petitioner has unjustifiably failed either to act in terms of the judgment and order of this Court or to discharge his duties as expected of a member of the disciplinary force, he is not entitled to any relief what so ever, he argued. 14. I have extended my thoughtful consideration to the rival pleadings and the arguments advanced. Though the facts leading to the verdict of this Court in W.P. (C) 300 (AP)/2002 need not be dilated upon, it would be apt to notice the charges levelled against the Petitioner, proved in the concerned disciplinary proceeding and sustained by this Court. That SI (T) Sanjib Adhikari while functioning as Sub-Inspector (Telecom) at P.R. Station. Yingkiong during the period from 30.01.1997 was allotted one room as accommodation in the Anchal Samity Barrack vide allotment order bearing No. YPR-08/96-97/749 dated 19.02.1997 issued by the Circle Officer-cum-Executive Officer, Anchal Samity, Yingkiong and remain kept the same under lock for a long time without paying any thereof. The said room-was ultimately unlocked on 22.12.1997 by a board duly constituted by the President, Anchal Samity Yingkiong where no any belonging of Shri Sanjib Adhikari was found except some Government properties. The rent thereof is still unpaid. Such act on the part of SI (T) Sanjib Adhikari is grossly immoral and unbecoming of a member of disciplined force. 2. That the said SI (T) Sanjib Adhikari sent a fake FIR dated 21.11.1998 by registered post to the O.C. Police Station, Yingkiong bringing false, allegations against his Superior Officers to the effect that he was being harassed by the then S.P. Shri Kishore Rana, APPS, with the help of Shri K.K. Paul, IPS, IGP and Shri M.S. Upadhyay, SP (T) by way of suspension for not rendering free tuition to his A. Ali, accountant to give Rs. 50,000/- as bribe to be given to Shri K.K. Paul, IGP, for revocation of his suspension order etc. The matter after entering into the G.D. register vide G.D.E. No. 376 dated 23.11.1998 was duly enquired into and found incorrect, false and baseless, whereas SI (T) Sanjib Adhikari is fully aware with the fact that he was suspended because he was involved in a crime of claiming false medical bills of Rs. 3,78,320/- only on the basis of forged documents. 3,78,320/- only on the basis of forged documents. Lodging such false and concocted information to the P.S. on the part of SI (T) Sanjib Adhikari amounts to gross misconduct and unbecoming of a member of disciplined force. 3. That on 27.11.1998 SI (T), Sanjib Adhikari lodged a fake information from Guwahati by registered post to the O.C. Police Station, Yingkiong stating therein that on 21.11.1998 at about 1100 hrs. he was attacked by two ruffians consisting of a gent and one lady with dao and also was threatened by them not to lodge any case to Yingkiong P.S. otherwise he would be murdered or implicated in a rape case. This information's were entered in the G.D. register vide G.D. No. 447 dated 27.11.1998 and was duly enquired into by SI M. Lego and was found false and purely concocted one. Such act on the part of SI (T) Sanjib Adhikari amounts to gross misconduct and unbecoming of a member of disciplined force. 4. That on 7.12.1998 SI (T) Sanjib Adhikari sent two letters to O.C. P.S. Yingkiong through S.P. Yingkiong falsely stating therein regarding problems of his life security and also security of his family members as well as harassment given to him by some of the Police Officers and Executive Officer etc. whereas question of such life security or harassment has never been arised. Such wrongful acts on the part of SI (T) S. Adhikari amounts gross misconduct and unbecoming of a member of disciplined force. 5. That SI (T) Sanjib Adhikari has been wilfully absenting himself from his posting place i.e. Yingkiong since 22.10.1998 on a fake ground of security of life and writing letters to different authorities for his subsistence allowances having full knowledge that such question of life security has never been arisen and his subsistence allowance for the month of September/98 to Dec/98 has already been drawn and is pending for disbursement. Such immoral and wrongful act on the part of SI (T) Sanjib Adhikari amounts to gross misconduct and unbecoming of a member of disciplined force. 15. Such immoral and wrongful act on the part of SI (T) Sanjib Adhikari amounts to gross misconduct and unbecoming of a member of disciplined force. 15. A bare reading of the text of the aforementioned decision of this Court would reveal that while upholding the validity of the departmental proceeding and the conclusion on the charges levelled against the Petitioner, interference with the penalty of dismissal was made on a compassionate consideration in face of the findings recorded in the certificate dated 14.3.2002 issued by the Medical Board of North Bengal Medical College, Darjeeling. This Court while quashing the order of dismissal directed substitution thereof by any penalty other than dismissal/discharge or termination and after the reinstatement of the Petitioner to get him examined by a Medical Board for ascertaining his physical and mental capacity for continuance in service. It was further directed that in case, he was assessed as not fit to be retained in service, his prayer to retire with disability pension be allowed, if permissible under the Rules. Arrears of subsistence allowance, if any, was also ordered to be disbursed. Adequate security to him was directed to be provided on his rejoining the service. This determination in absence of any challenge by the parties have became final and binding on the parties. Noticeably this Court did neither quash the charges against the Petitioner nor the finding that the same had been proved against him. Admittedly by order dated 22.10.2003, the Petitioner had been reinstated in terms of the above. There is no dispute either that thereafter a Medical Board was constituted by the Respondents and that the Petitioner had appeared before it on 17.4.2004. As would be apparent from the proceedings of the said Board, it observed as hereunder. The medical board, vide Order No. HP/PH-27/03-04 dated 12th April 2004 examined Mr. Sanjib Adhikari with all relevant documents produced by Mr. Adhikari. One of the documents proved to be a handicapped certificate issued by a board of Doctors of North Bengal Medical College, Darjeeling (No. ZMB/NBMC/PM-217/1594 dated 14.3.2002) which certified Mr. Adhikari to have been suffering from Refractory Depression and hence permanently handicapped. Therefore the board opines and recommends that another board may be constituted with a psychiatrist as member. 16. Adhikari. One of the documents proved to be a handicapped certificate issued by a board of Doctors of North Bengal Medical College, Darjeeling (No. ZMB/NBMC/PM-217/1594 dated 14.3.2002) which certified Mr. Adhikari to have been suffering from Refractory Depression and hence permanently handicapped. Therefore the board opines and recommends that another board may be constituted with a psychiatrist as member. 16. Incidentally the certificate dated 14.3.2002 referred to in the above extract had formed a part of the proceedings in W.P. (C) 300 AP/2002 and duly referred to in the decision rendered therein. The Medical Board of North Bengal Medical College, Darjeeling, certified as follows. 2. Locomotor Handicapped- Weakness of upper limb (R) .... 4. Mental Handicapped- The patient is suffering from refractory depression and is permanently handicapped to perform duties. Degree and extent of disability 2. Moderate-...50% (fifty) percent. 17. The Medical Board constituted by the Respondents as would appear from this proceeding was comprised of Medical Superintendent, General Hospital, Pasighat, Surgical Specialist, General Hospital and Orthopaedic Surgeon, General Hospital, Pasighat. 18. Having regard to the fact that the Petitioner claimed to be suffering from refractory depression having a bearing on his mental fitness, its (Medical Board of the Respondents) opinion for reconstitution thereof by including a psychiatrist as one of its members cannot readily be denounced as illogical. This is more so as the pivotal consideration on which the Petitioner's dismissal was interfered with was his claim of mental impairment as sought to be endorsed by the certificate of Medical Board of the North Bengal Medical College, Darjeeling. The Official records disclose that in terms of the recommendation of the Medical Board of the General Hospital, Pasighat, a fresh Body was constituted with Dr. L.C. Dargo, Psychiatry, as a member thereof fixing 1.6.2004 for the examination of the Petitioner vide order No. HP-PH/27/04 dated 26.5.2004 issued by the Deputy Director of Health Services (T and R), Pasighat, which further reveals that the Superintendent of Police was requested to direct the Petitioner to present himself for his evaluation. Incidentally, however, on the very same date i.e. 26.5.2004, the Petitioner had left Pasighat by submitting an application for leave for 30 days w.e.f. the said date. There is no wrangle at the Bar that the petitioner did not appear before the newly constituted Medical Board on 1.6.2004 or thereafter. 19. Incidentally, however, on the very same date i.e. 26.5.2004, the Petitioner had left Pasighat by submitting an application for leave for 30 days w.e.f. the said date. There is no wrangle at the Bar that the petitioner did not appear before the newly constituted Medical Board on 1.6.2004 or thereafter. 19. This Court by its verdict dated 17.9.2003 have required the State Respondents to have the Petitioner examined by a Medical Board constituted by it, the Petitioner's insistence to act on the certificate issued by the Medical Board of the North Bengal Medical College, Darjeeling, cannot be judicially approved. The Petitioner, however, in the meantime has brought on record through a representation dated 4.3.2008 addressed to the Director General of Police, Government of Arunachal Pradesh, PHQ, Itanagar, and the Superintendent of Police, East Siang District (a copy whereof has been forwarded to this Court), two other certificates dated 16.2.2005 and 13.2.2008 by the Zonal Medical Board, North Bengal Medical College, Darjeeling, reiterating the opinion expressed in the earlier certificate mentioning, however, an enhancement of the degree of disability to 60%. By the certificate dated 13.2.2008 while affirming that the Petitioner is a mentally challenged person suffering from refractory depression an ailment not likely to respond to any sort of treatment it has also been stated that the disability is permanent being 60%. Be that as it may, in view of the stand of the Respondents declining to accept the Petitioner's claimed medical status on the basis of the said certificate for the purpose of invalid/ disability pension, this Court in the teeth of its directions in the earlier proceeding does not consider it expedient to direct them (Respondents) to act thereon dehors an independent appraisal by their Medical Board. 20. Though by the order dated 26.5.2004 of the Director of Health Services (P and R) a new Medical Board had been constituted with a psychiatrist as a member thereof, it is not clear as to whether the Petitioner was officially informed of the sitting thereof on 1.6.2004 for his examination. In all his representations before the Respondent authorities as well as in the writ petition the Petitioner however has aired his unreserved apprehension of risk to his life and security in Arunachal Pradesh, debilitating indigence and insuperable physical and mental incapability rendering him incapable to continue in service. 21. In all his representations before the Respondent authorities as well as in the writ petition the Petitioner however has aired his unreserved apprehension of risk to his life and security in Arunachal Pradesh, debilitating indigence and insuperable physical and mental incapability rendering him incapable to continue in service. 21. On a consideration of all above and in particular the alarm consuming the Petitioner anticipating physical harm on his visit to Arunachal Pradesh as well as his physical and mental condition as prima facie available from the certificates referred to hereinabove, this Court is of the considered opinion that it would be in furtherance of justice if the Respondents are directed to convene a meeting of a Medical Board to be appropriately constituted by them for his examination at Guwahati. Ordered accordingly. 22. The Respondents would duly intimate the Petitioner about the composition of the Medical Board and the scheduled date of its sitting for his examination reasonably in advance so as to enable him to appear before it. It would be incumbent for the Petitioner if so notified to present himself before the Medical Board for his evaluation by it. Following the examination by the Board as above, the concerned Respondent authorities would take an appropriate decision as to his eligibility for disability/invalid pension. If the decision is in the affirmative, appropriate orders would be passed on issue of the Petitioner's retirement from service with all consequential retiral benefits. Further his outstanding service dues as on date would be computed and released to him. For both the purposes the Petitioner would construed to be in service as on date. 23. The Petitioner in the writ petition has admitted payment of his salary from 12.2.2004 to 31.3.2004 and also for the month of April 2004. He has admitted as well the payment of subsistence allowance upto the month of April 2001 @ 50% of his pay and also for the periods (a) May 2001 to 7.2.2002 and (b) 8.2.2002 to 30.11.2003. The Petitioner in the writ petition has admitted payment of his salary from 12.2.2004 to 31.3.2004 and also for the month of April 2004. He has admitted as well the payment of subsistence allowance upto the month of April 2001 @ 50% of his pay and also for the periods (a) May 2001 to 7.2.2002 and (b) 8.2.2002 to 30.11.2003. As the Respondents in categorical terms have averred that subsistence allowances of the Petitioner has been paid in full and further his pay w.e.f. 1.5.2004 has been withheld because of his unauthorized absence from duties w.e.f 26.5.2004, this Court having regard to the constraints in the exercise of its writ jurisdiction when confronted with disputed questions of facts, declines to accept the computation made by him with regard to his entitlements as enumerated in the writ petition as final. The Respondents would verify the same, if necessary, by associating the Petitioner or his authorized representative(s) as the case may be to quantify the amount payable to him. 24. The official records reveal that in the meantime by order dated 2.5.2005 passed by the Deputy Inspector General of Police Arunachal Pradesh a penalty of forfeiture of four increments with cumulative effect has been imposed on the Petitioner in connection with the departmental enquiry directed to be completed by this Court. Thereby the period of his suspension from 22.10.1998 to 11.2.2004 has also been held to be dies non. It transpires from the records that before passing the said order the Petitioner had been duly intimated about the proposal therefore to which his learned Counsel responded in writing that the reply as sought for in view of the pendency of the instant proceeding was not feasible. This stand of the Petitioner is to be mentioned to be rejected. As would be obvious from the operative portion of the judgment and order dated 17.9.2003, this Court while setting at naught the order of dismissal had directed the Respondents to award a penalty other than that of dismissal or discharge or termination. In that view of the matter, the Petitioner's inertness to the repeated notice issued by the Respondents seeking his reply to the proposed penalty of forfeiture of four increments cannot receive judicial imprimatur. The order of imposition of the aforementioned penalty therefore cannot be interfered with. The Petitioner's dues would logically therefore be subject to the above. 25. In that view of the matter, the Petitioner's inertness to the repeated notice issued by the Respondents seeking his reply to the proposed penalty of forfeiture of four increments cannot receive judicial imprimatur. The order of imposition of the aforementioned penalty therefore cannot be interfered with. The Petitioner's dues would logically therefore be subject to the above. 25. The official records further divulge that by Memorandum No. PSG (R) 13/DC-S A/2004 dated 2.2.2005 issued by the Superintendent of Police, East Siang District, Pasighat, a fresh enquiry has been initiated against the Petitioner under Rule 7 of the Arunachal Pradesh Police (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999, in essence on the charge of his unauthorized absence from duties w.e.f. 26.5.2004. Incidentally though the Petitioner had been served therewith, the same stand has been taken by his learned Counsel on his behalf Resultantly on a completion of the departmental enquiry ex-parte a copy of the enquiry report holding the charge (s) to be proved had been forwarded to the Petitioner, which also has remained unresponded on merits. The official records contain a show cause notice dated 28.8.2008 issued by the Deputy Inspector General of Police (W) requiring the petitioner to respond to the proposal for imposition of the penalty of removal from service. As on date, however, the order imposing the above penalty has not been passed. Visibly neither the order imposing a penalty of forfeiture of four increments on him nor the initiation of the second departmental enquiry as referred to hereinabove or the proceeding thereof has been challenged in the instant proceeding. As a matter of fact, pleadings on this count are not available on record. In absence of any assailment as required in law made by the Petitioner on the above counts this Court is not inclined to interfere therewith at this stage. The Petitioner is left at liberty, if so advised to take appropriate steps in this regard. On a consideration of the materials on record in their entirely the petition, therefore, stands allowed to the extent indicated hereinabove. No costs.