JUDGMENT Heard counsel for the parties and with their consent, this application is taken up for disposal at the stage of admission itself. 2. In this writ application, challenge has been made to the order dated 23.02.2004 (Annexure-3) passed by the Chairman-cum-Managing Director, BCCL, Dhanbad (Respondent No. 2), whereby upon reconsideration of the punishment imposed against the petitioner, an order has been passed by way of reduction to a lower post and without any back wages, till the date of joining. The period of absence from 21.09.1997, till the date of joining, was to be treated as 'Dies-Non'. 3. In course of submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner informs that during the pendency of this writ application, the petitioner Radhakant Jha has died and the present writ application is being pursued by his surviving widow. Learned counsel adds further that the petitioner's prayer is confined only to the portion of the impugned order whereby the back wages have been refused to be paid in the account of her deceased husband. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that earlier, an order of the petitioner's dismissal was passed by the Chairman-cum-Managing Director, BCCL (Respondent No. 2). Against the order of his dismissal, the petitioner approached this court and a Bench of this court by its order dated 25.1.2000 had remitted the case to the respondent authorities namely, Chairman-cum-Managing Director, BCCL, with a direction to reconsider the quantum of punishment and to pass a fresh order, in view of the fact that the petitioner was acquitted in the criminal case. After making reconsideration pursuant to the direction contained in the order of this court, the respondent Chairman-cum-Managing Director had passed another order whereby though, punishment of dismissal has been withdrawn, but it was substituted by an order of discharge. Being aggrieved, the petitioner again approached this court by filing a writ application which was disposed of by remitting the matter again to the Chairman-cum- Managing Director, BCCL with a direction to pass a fresh order in the light of the observation and direction contained in the order passed in the earlier writ application. Upon the case being so remanded, the respondent Chairman-cum-Managing Director passed the impugned order whereby the delinquent employee was though reinstated in service, without his back wages and he was reduced to a lower post. 5. Upon the case being so remanded, the respondent Chairman-cum-Managing Director passed the impugned order whereby the delinquent employee was though reinstated in service, without his back wages and he was reduced to a lower post. 5. Challenging the impugned order, learned counsel for the petitioner explains that the direction and the observation as contained in the order of this court passed in the earlier writ application, has not been strictly followed by the respondents in as much as, the Chairman-cum-Managing Director has not considered the fact that though on the same charges, a criminal case was instituted against the petitioner, but he was acquitted from the charges in the criminal case and such acquittal has the effect of the same benefit of exoneration from the purported charges. 5. Shri A.K. Mehta, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the impugned order has been made instrict compliance of the observations and directions as contained in the order passed in the earlier writ application. Learned counsel explains that by reconsidering the quantum of punishment, the respondent authorities have withdrawn the order of dismissal and also the subsequent order of the petitioner's discharge. Instead, the petitioner has been reinstated in service, though by imposing upon him a reduced punishment and stoppage of payment of back wages. Learned counsel explains further that the prayer for payment of back wages is totally misconceived in view of the fact that admittedly, the petitioner did not work for the aforesaid period after his dismissal from service and till the date when he was allowed to join and in absence of a specific plea that he was not gainfully employed during the entire period, the petitioner cannot claim payment of back wages as a matter of right. Learned counsel in this context, replies upon a judgment of a Division Bench of this court passed in the case of Employers in Relation to the Management of Lohapatti Colliery under the Mohuda Area No. II, M/s Bharat Coking Coal Limited vs. Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal No. 1, Dhanbad and another vide LPA No. 550 of 2002. Learned counsel in this context, replies upon a judgment of a Division Bench of this court passed in the case of Employers in Relation to the Management of Lohapatti Colliery under the Mohuda Area No. II, M/s Bharat Coking Coal Limited vs. Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal No. 1, Dhanbad and another vide LPA No. 550 of 2002. Learned counsel explains further that having considered the alleged misconduct of the petitioner in which he had indulged along with three others, the Disciplinary Authority in exercise of its powers under Rule 28 of the Certified Standing Orders of the respondent BCCL, has taken disciplinary action against the petitioner holding him guilty for the acts of misconduct and in such view of the matter, imposition of punishment for the alleged acts of misconduct cannot be termed as illegal or without any basis. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having gone through the records of this case, I find that the impugned order has been passed pursuant to the direction contained in the order passed by a Bench of this court in CWJC No. 239 of 1998 (R). This Court had directed the respondent Chairman-cum-Managing Director to reconsider the quantum of punishment imposed on the petitioner in the light of the fact that the petitioner has been acquitted in the criminal case. It appears further that the petitioner could secure his acquittal on the basis of compromise effected with the informant and the Disciplinary Authority of the petitioner has therefore not given any credit to the acquittal obtained by the petitioner. 7. Be that as it may, by the impugned order the respondent authority had made a reconsideration on the quantum of punishment and has recalled the earlier order of dismissal / discharge of the petitioner and has reinstated the petitioner in service, though by reducing the punishment by way of reduction to a lower post and withholding of the back wages. As has been rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the respondents, the petitioner cannot claim the payment of back wages as a matter of right in absence of a specific plea that during the period of his absence, he was not gainfully employed. 8. In the light of the above discussions, I do not find any merit in this writ application. Accordingly, the same is dismissed.