Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 383 (GAU)

C. Lalfelmawia v. State of Mizoram

2018-03-05

SONGKHUPCHUNG SERTO

body2018
JUDGMENT : S. Serto, J. This is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of appropriate writ quashing and setting aside the impugned Order No. 4IR/R/PF/C-273/2315, dated 24.08.2015 removing the petitioner from service in consequence of the disciplinary proceedings drawn up against him and also for quashing and setting aside the impugned Order dated 18.11.2015, Memo No. PHQ/AB/6/APPEAL/LMFA/168 dismissing the statutory appeal filed by the petitioner, and also for any order or direction as this Court may deem fit and proper. 2. Heard Mr. J.C. Lalnunsanga, learned counsel for the petitioner and also heard Mr. A.K. Rokhum, learned Addl. Advocate General appearing for the State of Mizoram. 3. The brief facts of the case leading to the filing of this writ petition are that while the petitioner was posted at Thinghlun BOP of 4th IR Battalion, a fire broke out in the night of 06.04.2015, which burned the house where he and his wife were staying which is stated to be only about 15 meters away from the camp. The fire consumed the whole house and moveable properties of the petitioner and his wife including 100 live rounds of 5.56 mm of INSAS Rifle and 3 magazines. Following the incident, the petitioner was suspended from service vide Order dated 13.04.2015 issued by the Commandant of 4th IR Battalion, Mizoram, in contemplation of holding a departmental enquiry against him. Thereafter, on the same day a memorandum of charge stating that for the misconduct or misbehavior of the petitioner, a departmental enquiry was being conducted was issued by Commandant 4th IR Battalion. Along with that, a statement of imputation was handed over to the petitioner. As stated in the article of charge, the petitioner was charged of grave misconduct and gross negligence of duty for having loss 100 live rounds of 5.56 mm of INSAS Rifles in the fire that completely burnt his house and properties. To conduct the departmental inquiry, Deputy Commandant of 4th IR Battalion, Sh. B. Laldinpuia was appointed and Inspector Sh. K. Malsawma was appointed as Presenting Officer, but later on Mr. Lalthianghlima, Inspector of 4th IR Battalion was appointed in his place and he continued as such, till the completion of the inquiry. To conduct the departmental inquiry, Deputy Commandant of 4th IR Battalion, Sh. B. Laldinpuia was appointed and Inspector Sh. K. Malsawma was appointed as Presenting Officer, but later on Mr. Lalthianghlima, Inspector of 4th IR Battalion was appointed in his place and he continued as such, till the completion of the inquiry. I am short, during the inquiry, 6 witnesses except for one who were all from the same post of 4th IR Battalion and wife of the petitioner were examined. After the examination of the witnesses, the inquiry officer submitted his final report on 09.07.2015. Based on the report submitted by the inquiry officer, the Commandant 4th IR Battalion passed the first impugned Order dated 24.08.2015 wherein the petitioner was dismissed from service with immediate effect and the period of his suspension was treated as on duty for all purposes. Operative portion of the impugned order is given herein below:- "On careful perusal of the written representation of the charged official C/273 C. Lalfelmawia, the excuse made by him for losing 100 (hundred) rds of 5.56 mm ammunitions and 3 (three) nos of INSAS Rifle magazine issued to him for his official duty in a fire due to his ignorance is totally unacceptable and unjustifiable considering the circumstances leading to the incident like his staying outside the B.O.P in violation of the PHQ order No. CB/PHQ/SOP-GUARDS/2014/44 dated 24.7.2014, keeping the magazines and ammunitions at Thinghlun B.O.P and fabricating a wholly false story of doing a patrolling duty on 4.4.2015. Hence, the undersigned has no option other than to take stern disciplinary action upon the delinquent as proposed based on the gravity of the misconduct which was PROVED in the Departmental Enquiry held against him. Hence, the undersigned has no option other than to take stern disciplinary action upon the delinquent as proposed based on the gravity of the misconduct which was PROVED in the Departmental Enquiry held against him. Now, therefore, the undersigned in exercise of the power conferred under the provisions of Chapter XI (Section 91 (1) (c)) of the Mizoram Police Act, 2011 (Act No. 3 of 2012) read with Rules 1044 and 1029 (1) (b) of the Mizoram Police Manual, 2005 and in the interest of public service, do hereby imposed upon the delinquent C/273 C. Lalfelmawia of 4th IR Bn, a penalty of "Removal from Service" with immediate effect; The period that he was placed under suspension wef.13.04.2015 till the date of issue of this order is hereby treated as 'not on duty' for all purposes and he will be entitled to get any other monetary benefit other than the subsistence allowances already drawn and paid to him during his suspension period. He should deposit back all the Govt. properties issued to him to the Quarter Master and Police ID card to the Reserve Officer, 4th IR Bn." 4. Aggrieved by the first impugned order, the petitioner preferred a statutory appeal before the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Mizoram. However, the same was dismissed by the DIG (Headquarter) vide his Order dated 18.11.2015 which is the second impugned order. The operative portion of the second impugned order is given herein below:- "The plea preferred by the appellant that he was staying in thatched house located nearby BOP with his wife with the permission of his Post Commander. It is clear indication of the violation of the Standard Operating Procedures (SOP) issued by the PHQ vide no. CB/PHQ/SOP-GUARD/2014/44 dated 24.7.2014 as Post Commander is competent to give permission in this regard. Another plea preferred by the appellant that the allegation for causing lost of magazines and ammunitions is baseless and rather gutted by fire and the same were recovered from the debris of the burnt down dwelling house and further that no instruction has been issued/announced to his notice. It is a fact that the appellant had caused loss of 3 magazines and 100 rounds of ammunitions out of negligence, disobedience and in a clear violation of the instruction/order issued from time to time. It is a fact that the appellant had caused loss of 3 magazines and 100 rounds of ammunitions out of negligence, disobedience and in a clear violation of the instruction/order issued from time to time. Hence, he equally liable to be punished whether he had lost 3 magazines and 100 rounds of ammunitions by himself knowing their whereabouts or having lost them in fire due to negligence and further the appellant should be aware of the PHQ order like the S.O.P and several verbal instructions by G.Os during their visit of BOP regarding safe custody of arms and ammunitions. Therefore, the claim raised by the appellant are wholly baseless. Another plea preferred by the appellant is that neither a copy of an appointment of Enquiry Officer and Presenting Officer were served to him nor given opportunity to engage Defence Assistant to defend himself. In fact, he was given an opportunity to engage a Defence Assistant but he declined it. Even though he might be served a copy of appointment of Enquiry Officer and Presenting Officer, but he was informed about the role played by the Enquiry Officer and Presenting Officer in a departmental enquiry and sought his acceptance or non-acceptance of the appointed Enquiry Officer and Presenting Officer in his case which he accepted both of them in preliminary hearing. Another plea preferred by the appellant is that the removal from service was commensurate with the alleged misconduct leveled against him. It is a fact that "the ground of his removal from service was grave misconduct" is baseless because of such 3 nos of magazines and 100 rounds live ammunitions due to gutting of his dwelling house wherein he had kept such magazines and ammunitions while he was supposed to keep within the camp, was negligence and gross violation of the Standard Operating Procedures (SOP) on the part of the appellant and which was a grave misconduct. As such, the question of the removal from service was commensurate with the alleged misconduct levelled against him does hold any ground. I have gone through his appeal petition, parawise comments of the concerned Commandant and in view of these facts and circumstances, I do have any reason to differ from the opinion of the Disciplinary Authority. As such, the question of the removal from service was commensurate with the alleged misconduct levelled against him does hold any ground. I have gone through his appeal petition, parawise comments of the concerned Commandant and in view of these facts and circumstances, I do have any reason to differ from the opinion of the Disciplinary Authority. Therefore, I do hereby reject the appeal petition preferred by the appellant Ex C/273 C. Lalfelmawia and uphold the removal order passed by the Disciplinary Authority Against the appellant vide order No. 4IR/R/PF/C- 273/2315 dated 24.8.2015 for the interest of justice." Not being satisfied with the order passed by the appellate authority, the petitioner has approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying as stated above. 5. The case of the petitioner, as submitted by his learned counsel in brief, is stated below:- That the plea of the petitioner that he stayed in a house outside the camp with the permission of the post Commandant of 4th IR Battalion and, the ammunitions and the magazines were kept by him as he and his colleague were allowed to do so by the post Commandant to enable them to respond quickly to any eventuality keeping in view the sensitiveness of the place where they were posted was supported by all the witnesses but it has been ignored by the disciplinary authority. Therefore, the impugned orders are only illegal but devoid of fairness and any basis. In support of the stated case of the petitioner, the learned counsel referred to the statements of all the witnesses particularly the statements of the post Commandant, namely, Pabuanga and Constable J. Lalthakima, N.K. Kunal Chakma and K. Vanlalhruaia, all from the same post of 4th IR Battalion. The learned counsel submitted that an inquiry officer acting in a quasi-judicial authority is in the position of an independent adjudicator, therefore he is supposed to be a representative of the department/disciplinary authority. His function is to examine the evidence presented by the department independently and act accordingly. But in this case the inquiry officer has totally ignored the evidence given by the witnesses. Therefore, the enquiry report which is based on the evidence given by witnesses and the impugned orders which are based on the same deserves to be quashed and set aside. But in this case the inquiry officer has totally ignored the evidence given by the witnesses. Therefore, the enquiry report which is based on the evidence given by witnesses and the impugned orders which are based on the same deserves to be quashed and set aside. In support of his submissions, the learned counsel referred to paragraph 28 and 30 of the Judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh and others v. Saroj Kumar Sinha reported in (2010) 2 SCC 772 . The contents of the two paragraphs are reproduced here below: "28. An inquiry officer acting in a quasi-judicial authority is in the position of an independent adjudicator. He is supposed to be a representative of the department/disciplinary authority/Government. His function is to examine the evidence presented by the Department, even in the absence of the delinquent official to see as to whether the unrebutted evidence is sufficient to hold that the charges are proved. In the present case the aforesaid procedure has been observed. Since no oral evidence has been examined the documents have been proved, and could have been taken into consideration to conclude that the charges have been proved against the respondents. 30. When a departmental enquiry is conducted against the government servant it cannot be treated as a casual exercise. The enquiry proceedings also cannot be conducted with a closed mind. The inquiry officer has to be wholly unbiased. The rules of natural justice are required to be observed to ensure only that justice is done but is manifestly seen to be done. The object of rules of natural justice is to ensure that a government servant is treated fairly in proceedings which may culminate in imposition of punishment including dismissal/removal from service". 6. The learned counsel also submitted that assuming that the petitioner was wrong in keeping the ammunitions in his possession which resulted in the loss of the same by fire, the quantum of punishment awarded by the disciplinary authority is too harsh for the charge leveled against him. The learned counsel further submitted that in such a case, the right quantum of punishment would be requiring the petitioner to pay for the value of the ammunition and magazines burnt in the fire. The learned counsel further submitted that in such a case, the right quantum of punishment would be requiring the petitioner to pay for the value of the ammunition and magazines burnt in the fire. In support of his submission, the learned counsel relied on the judgment of this High Court passed in the case of J. Vanlalchhuanga v. State of Mizoram and 2 Others, WP(C) No. 45/2013. The relevant paragraphs are 7, 8 and 10, and the contents of the three paragraphs are reproduced herein below: "7. While considering the order dated 24th June, 2003 in connection with one Lalrinnunga, Storekeeper under the Directorate of Food & Civil Supplies, Mizoram, Aizawl who has suspended in connection with creating liabilities amounting to Rs. 8,73,248/- and after admitting the shortage by him the concerned authority after completion of departmental enquiry had imposed the same penalty as awarded to the present petitioner. However, in his case his suspension period was treated ads duty for all purpose with full pay and allowances for that period. The said order has been annexed as Annexure 12(a) to the writ petition. 8. Another order dated 2nd May, 2012 by which one Velkima, Storekeeper under the Directorate of Food, Civil Supplies & Consumer Affairs, Mizoram, Aizawl was suspended for creating liabilities amounting to Rs. 22,53,998.00 There also on completion of disciplinary proceeding and on admission by the said Velkima, the concerned authority had imposed the same type of penalty that was imposed upon the petitioner but in that case also his suspension period was treated as on duty for all purposes and he was paid full pay and allowances during the period of his suspension subject to adjustment of the subsistence already drawn by him. The said order has been annexed as Annexure 12(b) to the writ petition. 10. Normally, this Court does sit as an appellate authority over the findings of the enquiry officer nor upon the decision of the disciplinary authority to impose penalties upon the delinquent officers provided there is no procedure flaws mala fide and arbitrariness in such departmental proceedings. However, in the instant case in hand, this Court cannot ignore the fact that when similarly situated and equally circumstanced persons were reinstated after being imposed minor penalties, the period of suspension was treated as on duty with full pay and allowance i.e. the orders dated 24.6.2003 and 2.5.2012. However, in the instant case in hand, this Court cannot ignore the fact that when similarly situated and equally circumstanced persons were reinstated after being imposed minor penalties, the period of suspension was treated as on duty with full pay and allowance i.e. the orders dated 24.6.2003 and 2.5.2012. In fact, in the case of Velkima, Storekeeper, the liability created by him was amounting to a huge amount of Rs. 22,53,998.00. However, the respondents had decided to impose minor penalty and allowed the suspensions period to be treated as on duty with full pay and allowances. When similarly situated and equally circumstanced persons had been treated in a different manner than that of the petitioner, this Court finds that the petitioner has been discriminated by the competent authority by giving him the same treatment that has been given to others i.e. treating the period of suspension of the petitioner as on duty with full pay and allowances subject to deduction of the subsistence allowance already drawn by him". 7. The learned counsel further submitted that in case the petitioner is reinstated he would be entitled to back wages, since the date on which his suspension order was issued. In support of his submission, the learned counsel cited the judgment of this High Court passed in the case of Sh. Moalong v. Union of India and 2 Others, WP(C) No. 17(K)/2017. The relevant paragraph is 7 and the contents of the paragraph is reproduced herein below: "7. I have considered the submissions of both the learned counsels. I fully agree with the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner which find support in the judgments cited by him. Once the dismissal order or discharge order is quashed it has to be assumed that such order was no-nest and it did exist, therefore, the person who was dismissed or discharged has to be given pay and allowance for the period he could attend office because of the dismissal or discharge order. The reason is simple, absence from duty during that period is by choice of the petitioner but due to the discharge order issued by the Commandant of his Battalion. Therefore, it would be just and fair to let the petitioner suffer for an act of which he is responsible. The reason is simple, absence from duty during that period is by choice of the petitioner but due to the discharge order issued by the Commandant of his Battalion. Therefore, it would be just and fair to let the petitioner suffer for an act of which he is responsible. I am inclined to accept the submission of the learned CGC that in view of the order of this Court passed in W.P.(C) No. 3(K) of 2015 in which liberty was given to the respondents to issue appropriate order, the impugned order was issued as deem fit, therefore, there is no illegality in it. What has to be understood from that order of this High Court is that the respondents were given the liberty to pass any order which is permissible in law and otherwise. Because no court would have given the liberty to pass any order which is permitted by law." 8. Mr. A.K. Rokhum, learned Addl. Advocate General appearing for the State of Mizoram and the other respondents submitted that the place where the petitioner was posted at the relevant time is at tri-junction of Tripura, Mizoram and Assam, where undergrounds like ULFA, BNLF and TLTF were active. Therefore, strict instructions were issued to personnel of IRB posted there and the Standard Operation Procedure (BOP), which was prepared for such places, was circulated by Police Headquarter. As per that HOP, none of the personnel were allowed to stay with their family members at the place of posting and their family members can visit them only with permission of either the Wing Commander or the post Commander. The petitioner being posted in such area is expected to know all these instructions and conduct himself accordingly. But having done so, he has to suffer the consequences as has been rightly given in the impugned order. 9. The learned Addl. Advocate General also submitted that all the witnesses examined are interested witnesses since they all belonged to the same post where the petitioner was posted, therefore, their versions of the incident cannot be relied upon. 10. The learned Addl. Advocate General further submitted that assuming that permission was granted to the petitioner by his post Commandant to stay with his wife and also to keep the ammunition and magazines, he should have known better that as per Standard Operation Procedure, he was permitted to do the same. 10. The learned Addl. Advocate General further submitted that assuming that permission was granted to the petitioner by his post Commandant to stay with his wife and also to keep the ammunition and magazines, he should have known better that as per Standard Operation Procedure, he was permitted to do the same. Therefore, he cannot escape from the consequence of his wrong doing. 11. The learned Addl. Advocate General continued and submitted that the petitioner cannot claim parity with those other persons of his camp who were also staying outside and kept the ammunition and magazines issued to them because in their case, no loss has occurred. If such wrong committed by the petitioner is condoned or exonerated, there would be a danger in the future of passing or selling ammunition to insurgent groups by personnel of Mizoram police posted at vulnerable places. Therefore, the disciplinary authority was justified in having passed the impugned order that removed the petitioner from service and there is no illegality has been committed while passing such order. 12. The learned Addl. Advocate General lastly submitted that even if the petitioner is reinstated he is entitled to get his back wages. In support of his submission, he cited two Judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court. The relevant portions of the two Judgments referred to are reproduced herein below: (i) Chairman cum Managing Director, Coal India Limited and Others v. Ananta Saha and Others reported in (2011) 5 SCC 142 Paragraph 46 & 48. "46. In the last, the delinquent has submitted that this Court must issue directions for his reinstatement and payment of arrears of salary till date. Shri Bandopadhyay, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants, has vehemently opposed the relief sought by the delinquent contending that the delinquent has to be deprived of the back wages on the principle of "no work-no pay". The delinquent had been practicing privately i.e. has been gainfully employed, thus, entitled for back wages. Even if this Court comes to the conclusion that the High Court was justified in setting aside the order of punishment and fresh enquiry is to be held now, the delinquent can simply be reinstated and put under suspension and would be entitled to subsistence allowance as per the service rules applicable in his case. Even if this Court comes to the conclusion that the High Court was justified in setting aside the order of punishment and fresh enquiry is to be held now, the delinquent can simply be reinstated and put under suspension and would be entitled to subsistence allowance as per the service rules applicable in his case. The question of back wages shall be determined by the disciplinary authority in accordance with law only on the conclusion of the fresh enquiry. 48. In ECIL v. B. Karunakar and Union of India v. Y.S. Sadhu, this Court held that where the punishment awarded by the disciplinary authority is quashed by the court/tribunal on some technical ground, the authority must be given an opportunity to conduct the enquiry afresh from the stage where it stood before the alleged vulnerability surfaced. However, for the purpose of holding fresh enquiry, the delinquent is to be reinstated and may be put under suspension. The question of back wages, etc. is determined by the disciplinary authority in accordance with law after the fresh enquiry is concluded". (ii) Diljit Singh Bedi v. Shiromani Gurdwara Prabandhak Committee, Shri Amritsar reported in (2011) 5 SCC 417 paragraph 18. "18. The order dated 28.02.2008 issued by the Secretary of SGPC terminating the services of the appellant is therefore legally valid and is accordingly quashed. The impugned order of the High Court is set aside. The writ petition and this appeal are allowed. The appellant will be forthwith reinstated in service. On the facts and circumstances, particularly having regard to the fact that the appellant had offered to resign on 4.1.2008, the appellant will be entitled to any back wages. There shall be no order as to costs". 13. Mr. J.C. Lalnunsanga, the learned counsel for the petitioner in reply submitted that nowhere in the SOP it is mention that Constables or Personnel of IRB are allowed to keep ammunition with them. The learned counsel also submitted that the SOP has to be read as a whole and in part and if it is read as a whole, there is a provision therein at paragraph J (iv) wherein it is provided that if a Government property is lost, it will be replaced by the person who lost it. The learned counsel also submitted that the SOP has to be read as a whole and in part and if it is read as a whole, there is a provision therein at paragraph J (iv) wherein it is provided that if a Government property is lost, it will be replaced by the person who lost it. Keeping that in view, the petitioner may be made to pay for the loss of 100 live rounds of ammunition and 3 magazines instead of punishing him with dismissal. The learned counsel further submitted that the witnesses were produced by the Department or they were prosecution witnesses of the Disciplinary Authorities. Therefore, if the Disciplinary Authorities feel that they are trustworthy they should have declared them hostile and base their decision on their statements. 14. I have gone through the charge and imputation of charge against the delinquent petitioner and the statement of the witnesses, the findings of the Inquiry Officer. I have also gone through the impugned orders passed by the Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate Authority. One of the important witnesses of the Disciplinary Authority is one Mr. S.I. Pabuanga, who was the post Commander at Thinghlun, BOP at the relevant time. In his statement, Mr. Pabuanga stated that though he knew it was permissible to let any of the personnel of their camp to stay with any of their family members, he had allowed the delinquent petitioner to stay with his wife in a hut near the camp as the wife of the delinquent petitioner was ill health and she needed to be cared for. From the statement of the witnesses, who is none other than the Commander of the post, it is clear that the petitioner stayed with his wife in a house near the camp with the permission of his superior. Therefore, he cannot be held guilty of disobedience and indiscipline in having stayed outside the camp with his wife. 15. Regarding the retaining of 100 live rounds of 5.56 mm and 3 magazines by the petitioner, it is stated by Mr. N.K. Kunal Chakma who was the Kote-naik that before he was given the charge of Kote-naik, arms were always kept in the Kote but ammunitions issued to the personnel were retained by them. 15. Regarding the retaining of 100 live rounds of 5.56 mm and 3 magazines by the petitioner, it is stated by Mr. N.K. Kunal Chakma who was the Kote-naik that before he was given the charge of Kote-naik, arms were always kept in the Kote but ammunitions issued to the personnel were retained by them. So, after he was given the charge of Kote-naik, he asked PC SI Pabuanga, the post Commander as to whether the Constables should continue to retain the ammunitions and magazines issued to them, to his quiry, Mr. Pabuanga told him that they will continue to retain since they were keeping the same safely. Another witness Mr. K. Vanlalhruaia, who is also a Constable posted in the same post stated that in the beginning, ammunitions and magazines were kept by the staff. Later on, they were told to keep the same as the area where they were posted was sensitive. Further, another witness namely J. Lalthakima, who was also a Constable of 4th IRB posted at the same post stated that after about 2 (two) months from the date of his posting, they were told to keep the ammunitions and magazines issued to them to enable them to respond quickly as the place was sensitive. From the statements of all the witnesses stated above, one can safely conclude that the delinquent petitioner kept the 100 live rounds of 5.56 mm and 3 magazines at his residence as per the instruction and out of his own will. Therefore, the charge that the delinquent petitioner had retained the 100 live rounds of 5.56 mm and 3 magazines at his residence against the SOP and instructions issued by higher ups is baseless. Further, all the witnesses stated that the house or the hut where the delinquent petitioner stayed with his wife was burnt by fire and all their personal properties along with the 100 live rounds of 5.56 mm and 3 magazines were also burnt in the fire. As stated above, from the evidence in the record, there is nothing to show that the delinquent petitioner is guilty of the charges framed against him. Therefore, the findings recorded by the inquiry officer and the conclusions drawn by him are without any basis, hence perverse. As stated above, from the evidence in the record, there is nothing to show that the delinquent petitioner is guilty of the charges framed against him. Therefore, the findings recorded by the inquiry officer and the conclusions drawn by him are without any basis, hence perverse. As such, the impugned order dated 24.08.2015 passed by the Commandant, 4th IR Battalion, Mizoram, by which, the delinquent petitioner was dismissed from service with immediate effect, treating the period of his suspension from 13.04.2015, till the date of issue of the same order cannot be sustained in law. Hence, the same is quashed and set aside. Furthermore, for the same reasons, the order of the Deputy Inspector, General of Police dated 18.11.2015 by which, the statutory appeal of the delinquent petitioner preferred against the 1st impugned order is also quashed and set aside. 16. However, the delinquent petitioner cannot be said to be fully blameless since he is expected to take sufficient care so that the 100 live rounds of 5.56 mm and 3 magazines issued to him are safe and secured. Therefore, this Court is of the view that he should be made to repay the value of the destroyed 100 live rounds of 5.56 mm and 3 magazines. Accordingly, the respondents are directed to recover the same from the delinquent petitioner. 17. It appears from the statement of the post Commander that the delinquent petitioner has been always of good character, dedicated to his work and having no record of any punishment, minor or major having been inflicted on him all these while in his service carrier. Taking this into account, I am of the considered view that he should not be inflicted with any more punishment than what has been stated above. Accordingly, the respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioner to his post forthwith and treat the period, from the date of his suspension till the date of his reinstatement as on duty. The respondents are further directed to recover the price of the 100 live rounds of 5.56 mm and 3 magazines from his pay and allowances. 18. With this, the writ petition is disposed of.