JUDGMENT Hon’ble S.U. Khan, J.—Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Petitioner claims to have been appointed as ‘Constable’ in U.P. Police in the year 1966 and thereafter to have been promoted to the post of Head Constable. In the year 1973, petitioner was working in U.P. Provincial Armed Constabulary (PAC). Services of the petitioner were temporary uptil 1973. In the year 1973, several employees of PAC revolted. Army had to be called to quell the revolt. Against several employees of PAC, who were suspected to be involved in the revolt, F.I.Rs. were lodged and their services were terminated. Services of several employees, who were not permanent, were terminated without any enquiry. Such persons, against whom criminal cases were launched and who were subsequently acquitted, filed writ petitions for setting aside their termination orders. Writ petitions were allowed and their termination orders were set aside. 3. Against petitioner no F.I.R. had been lodged. His services being temporary, he was dismissed on payment of one month’s salary. Petitioner filed W.P. No. 4369 of 1998 against his termination order dated 2.6.1973. The writ petition was filed after 25 years of termination of service. Writ petition was disposed of on 11.2.1998 by a very short order, which is contained in Annexure-1 to the writ petition. The entire order is quoted below : “Petitioner’s services were terminated on the ground of his involvement in PAC revolt. He was not prosecuted. The learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that all the persons, who are similarly terminated, were prosecuted and ultimately acquitted, have been allowed to join their duties but the petitioner, who was terminated, was not involved in the criminal charge, is not being allowed to join his duties. It is also stated that the case of the petitioner stands on much stronger footing to those persons, who have been prosecuted and acquitted. The writ petition is finally disposed of with the direction that respondent No. 4, S.S.P., Agra shall consider the question of permitting the petitioner to join his duties ignoring the termination order if the only ground for termination of the petitioner was his involvement in PAC revolt.” Appropriate speaking order shall be passed within two months from the date of certified copy of this order is produced before him.” 4. Thereafter, on 14.5.1998, S.S.P., Agra passed the order of reinstating the petitioner from the date of termination of service. Thereafter, on 14.5.1998, S.S.P., Agra passed the order of reinstating the petitioner from the date of termination of service. It was also observed that order regarding wages etc. will be passed separately. In the said order of S.S.P. Agra, it is mentioned that the said order was being passed as per direction of the High Court dated 11.2.1998. In the order of S.S.P., there is no mention that services of petitioner were terminated on 2.6.1973 on the ground of his involvement in PAC revolt. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner during argument categorically stated that petitioner was paid salary with effect from the date of his joining in pursuance of order dated 14.5.1998 and he was also paid about Rs. 4 lacs as back wages. In Para-6 of the writ petition, it has been stated that S.S.P. passed another order on 2.11.1998 (or 2.10.1998), copy of which is Annexure-3 to the writ petition directing payment of back wages to the petitioner and thereafter Rs. 4,81,000/- and odd were paid to the petitioner as back wages/salary. 6. Thereafter, petitioner retired on 31.12.2003. Petitioner was not being paid gratuity etc. hence he filed an application before S.S.P., Agra on 16.1.2004 (Annexure-4 to the writ petition). Thereafter, S.S.P. passed an order on 16.6.2004 mentioning therein that Government had passed an order dated 15.4.2004 directing that those police personnel whose services were terminated due to their involvement in PAC revolt in the year 1973 and who were afterwards reinstated under orders of High Court should not be paid any back wages/salary on the principle of ‘no work no pay’. It was further directed that if any amount had been paid, then the same shall be recovered. The order dated 16.6.2004 has been challenged through this writ petition. 7. In the counter affidavit of R.K. Pandey, Dy. S.P., Agra sworn on 19.11.2004, it was stated that order dated 2.10.1998 alleged to have been passed by S.S.P. Agra regarding payment of back wages was forged and manipulated and enquiry had been initiated in that regard and enquiry was conducted and several officers involved were suspended and disciplinary proceedings were initiated against them. S.P., Agra sworn on 19.11.2004, it was stated that order dated 2.10.1998 alleged to have been passed by S.S.P. Agra regarding payment of back wages was forged and manipulated and enquiry had been initiated in that regard and enquiry was conducted and several officers involved were suspended and disciplinary proceedings were initiated against them. In this writ petition a detailed interim order was passed on 19.1.2006 directing the Director General of Police to file his affidavit or affidavit of some senior officer indicating as to whether money fraudulently paid to the petitioner had been recovered or not and whether any action was taken against S.S.P. Agra or not? The S.S.P., who was posted at Agra in October, 1998 when alleged order of payment of back wages was passed stated that no such order had been passed by him and that in Agra eight similarly situated persons including the petitioner had forged such types of orders. That statement is contained in the order dated 18.4.2006 on the order sheet. Principal Secretary and other authorities were also directed to file their affidavits, which were accordingly filed. Principal Secretary in his affidavit dated 16.5.2006 stated that investigation regarding fraudulent withdrawal of money had been referred to C.B.C.I.D. That fact was also noted in the order dated 17.5.2006 passed in this writ petition on the order sheet. Thereafter on 17.7.2006, an order was passed in this writ petition directing the Inspector, C.B.C.I.D. to submit progress report. Thereafter, another detailed order was passed on 8.12.2006. In the said order, it was noticed that about Rs. 21 lacs had illegally been paid to 11 similarly situated persons including the petitioner. In the said order, it was also noticed that report of C.B.C.I.D. had been filed along with affidavit dated 8.12.2006. The Court expressed its unhappiness with the report. It was also observed as follows in the said order : “Suffice is to record that senior most officers of the Police Department are involved.” 8. Thereafter, it was directed that enquiry must be conducted by C.B.I. 9. In the said order, the first two points required to be investigated by the C.B.I. were as follows : “(i) Under whose signature the sum of Rs. 21 lacs and odds have been released in favour of 4 constables towards back wages. Thereafter, it was directed that enquiry must be conducted by C.B.I. 9. In the said order, the first two points required to be investigated by the C.B.I. were as follows : “(i) Under whose signature the sum of Rs. 21 lacs and odds have been released in favour of 4 constables towards back wages. (ii) Whether the payment of arrears of salary have been released under the signature of the Senior Superintendent of Police, Agra namely Bhanu Pratap Singh in the case of Hori Lal or not. If the said withdrawal has been effected under the signature of some other officer, the name of such officer may be recorded.” 10. Ultimately report of C.B.I. dated 25.9.2007 was submitted along with letter of same date by C.B.I. to Registrar General, High Court. 11. Prior to the final report, C.B.I. had submitted several status reports. Apart from one status report dated 22.5.2007 neither any other status report nor final enquiry report by C.B.I. were available in the file, hence Sri G.S. Hajela, learned counsel for the C.B.I. was directed to supply duplicate copies of all the reports. Learned counsel supplied all the reports including the final report. There is a Bench Secretary’s report on the order-sheet to the effect that in compliance of the order dated 29.2.2008 passed in Application No. 53780 of 2008 original sealed cover record handed over to learned counsel for the C.B.I. Mr. G.S. Hajela today, i.e. on 13.2.2008 (ought to be 13.3.2008). There is also an endorsement of Sri G.S. Hajela, learned counsel of the same date, i.e. 13.3.2008 on the order-sheet to the effect that four sealed envelops had been received by him from Bench Secretary of Hon’ble Mr. Justice Arun Tandon. 12. The manner in which C.B.I. has submitted the final report leaves much to be desired. The public as well as the Courts have got great faith upon the C.B.I., however the report of C.B.I. in the instant case does not show that it has been prepared by an expert body in a professional manner. 13. In respect of constable Hori Lal (petitioner), it has been observed in the report as follows : “3(a)(iv) Constable Hori Lal was a temporary employee and was dismissed from service w.e.f. 2.6.1973, on the orders of SSP, Agra, by paying one month’s salary in lieu of one month’s notice. 13. In respect of constable Hori Lal (petitioner), it has been observed in the report as follows : “3(a)(iv) Constable Hori Lal was a temporary employee and was dismissed from service w.e.f. 2.6.1973, on the orders of SSP, Agra, by paying one month’s salary in lieu of one month’s notice. Hon’ble High Court vide its order dated 11.2.1998 (copy enclosed as Annexure-J) in WP No. 4369 of 1998, filed by Hori Lal had directed SSP, Agra, to consider the question of permitting Hori Lal to join his duties ignoring the termination order, if the only ground for termination was his involvement in the P.A.C. revolt. In compliance to the aforesaid order, Sri B.P. Singh, the then SSP, Agra, vide his order dated 14.5.1998 (Copy enclosed as Annexure-K) reinstated Hori Lal and passed orders for payment of back wages with retrospective effect and constable Hori Lal was paid an amount of Rs. 4.81 lacs towards back wages. In his order Sri B.P. Singh mentioned that this was being done in compliance of the High Court order. The fact of matter, however, is that Hon’ble High Court had not passed any such categorical order. It would, thus, appear that even though Sri B.P. Singh had no personal motive or mala fide intention in passing this order, he failed to correctly interpret and understand the order passed by the Hon’ble High Court. (b) As regards the point mentioned at para 2(ii) above, the result of enquiry has been given in the para 3 (a)(iv) above. It is clear that on the basis of order dated 14.5.1998 issued under the signature of Shri B.P. Singh, the then S.S.P., Agra, payment of back-wages were made to constable Hori Lal.” 14. The fact of the matter is that through order dated 14.5.1998, Sri B.P. Singh, the then S.S.P. Agra had only directed Hori Lal, the petitioner to be reinstated with effect from the date of termination of service. In the said order of 14.5.1998, copy of which is Annexure-2 to the writ petition, it was categorically mentioned that orders in respect of salary etc. would be passed separately. Thereafter, through Annexure-3 to the writ petition order dated 2.10.1998 (or 2.11.1998) passed by S.S.P., Agra, orders regarding payment of back-wages were passed. In the report of the C.B.I., there is absolutely no mention of order dated 2.10.1998 (or 2.11.1998). would be passed separately. Thereafter, through Annexure-3 to the writ petition order dated 2.10.1998 (or 2.11.1998) passed by S.S.P., Agra, orders regarding payment of back-wages were passed. In the report of the C.B.I., there is absolutely no mention of order dated 2.10.1998 (or 2.11.1998). The main point to be decided was as to whether order dated 2.10.1998 (or 2.11.1998) had in fact been passed by S.S.P. Agra or not. The C.B.I. in its report incorrectly mentioned that payment of back salary was made on the basis of order dated 14.5.1998. C.B.I. was required to enquire as to whether order dated 2.10.1998 (or 2.11.1998) had in fact been passed by S.S.P. or not. No findings in this regard has been recorded. There is even no mention of order dated 2.10.1998 (or 2.11.1998) in the report. 15. Even order dated 14.5.1998 is not perfectly correct. The High Court had directed the S.S.P. to decide as to whether the only ground for termination of the petitioner was his involvement in P.A.C. revolt or not. In the order dated 14.5.1998, S.S.P. has mentioned that in view of High Court’s judgment and opinion of D.G.C., petitioner is being reinstated. 16. Sri B.P. Singh, the then S.S.P. has been impleaded on his own impleadment application dated 22.3.2006, which was allowed on 18.7.2008. Sri B.P. Singh also filed affidavit. In Para-7 of the said affidavit, it has been stated that “the deponent has not passed any order with regard to fixation of his salary rather the same has been passed by the Deputy S.P. on behalf of deponent, which was not known to the deponent”. 17. Absolutely no reason has been given in the order dated 2.10.1998 (or 2.11.1998) (Annexure-3 to the writ petition) for granting the back salary. Annexure-3 at the end clearly bears the date October 2, 1998. October 2 being Gandhi Jayanti is a national holiday. However it appears that the date is wrongly mentioned there and the said order was passed on 2.11.1998 as mentioned in Annexure-4. 18. The petitioner approached the Court very late, i.e. after 25 years. If he was not involved in the revolt, then there was no need for him to wait for reinstatement of those P.A.C. constables, who were suspected to be involved in the revolt and against whom criminal cases were also filed, which revolted in acquittal. 19. 18. The petitioner approached the Court very late, i.e. after 25 years. If he was not involved in the revolt, then there was no need for him to wait for reinstatement of those P.A.C. constables, who were suspected to be involved in the revolt and against whom criminal cases were also filed, which revolted in acquittal. 19. Directing reinstatement may amount to condoning the role if any, which may have been played by petitioner in P.A.C. revolt. Granting back salary for 25 years for the period for which petitioner did not work would amount to awarding prize to the petitioner for his role, if any, in the P.A.C. revolt. 20. There is absolutely neither an allegation nor any evidence regarding non-employment of petitioner during 25 years, when petitioner was not in service as P.A.C. constable. On this ground also petitioner did not deserve any salary for the period when he was not in the P.A.C. service. In the earlier order of this Court also, there was no such direction. 21. Accordingly, there is absolutely no merit in the writ petition, hence it is dismissed. 22. Office is directed to supply a copy of this order free of cost to learned Chief Standing Counsel and Sri G.S. Hajela, learned counsel for the C.B.I. within a week. ————