JUDGMENT : 1. The writ petitioner was originally dismissed from service from the post of Constable of Jharkhand Armed Police Force. There have been litigations at various levels in the past over such dismissal and ultimately his guilt was established. The order of dismissal, however, was set-aside by a learned Single Judge on the ground of being excessive or disproportionate. Subsequently, the disciplinary authority reheard the writ petitioner on the question of punishment and imposed punishment of withholding of one increment. The dismissal order was passed on 27th November, 1998 and the same was set-aside on 19th July, 2013. In this proceeding, the dispute is confined to payment of back-wages. The authorities have rejected the claim of the writ petitioner/appellant for back-wages for the period he remained dismissed on the ground that he did not render any service to the police force during that period. 2. Learned counsel for the State has submitted that before the authorities, the writ petitioner did not demonstrate that he was not employed elsewhere during the period his service stood terminated and thus presumption would be against him on the question of he remaining unemployed during that period. 3. The learned First Court in the judgment under appeal dismissed the writ petition holding the issue in favour of the authorities. The reasoning on which the writ petition was dismissed was that the writ petitioner did not perform any duty during the period in question and in the disciplinary proceeding also he was not fully exonerated. The fact that the writ petitioner was not fully exonerated by itself ought not to deprive him from receiving any amount of back-wages during the period his service remained terminated. That is because he was not permitted to render any service during the subject-period. Thus, on the question of directing payment of back-wages in a situation like this, various factors are required to be considered. One of these factors is as to whether the dismissed person was engaged gainfully elsewhere or not during the period his service remained terminated. State’s case is that it was within special knowledge of the appellant whether he was employed or not during that period and he failed to establish that factor. As such, it was argued on behalf of the State that there was no error committed by the authorities and the judgment of the learned First Court does not warrant any interference. 4. As such, it was argued on behalf of the State that there was no error committed by the authorities and the judgment of the learned First Court does not warrant any interference. 4. We are, however of the view that a further opportunity may be given to the appellant-writ petitioner to establish whether he was employed or not during the period of his dismissal. We accept the submission of the State that it was the duty of the writ petitioner to bring on record the said fact at the time of hearing before departmental authorities. But considering the fact that the writ petitioner is a Constable and in the writ petition in paragraph no.18 itself he pleaded that he was not gainfully employed elsewhere during the relevant period, we want a further opportunity to be given to him to establish his employment status during the period he remained under order of dismissal. The State has also not come forward with a specific case that the appellant-writ petitioner was gainfully employed during the subject period. The writ petitioner shall make a substantive representation on this count. Such representation again must be made within a period of 8 weeks from date. The departmental authority shall complete the exercise within a period of 12 weeks from the date of receiving such representation. Depending on the finding of the departmental authority on the point of his employment status, appropriate order shall be passed on the question of back-wages by the said authority within the aforesaid time frame. The judgment of the learned First Court stands modified to the above extent. 5. The appeal stands disposed of in the above terms. No order as to costs.