ORDER : M. NAGAPRASANNA, J. Aggrieved by the order dated 03.04.2018 passed by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as ‘Tribunal’ for short), Bengaluru, in Application No.8253 of 2014, whereby the Tribunal declined to grant backwages for the period between compulsory retirement namely, 25.11.2009 and the date of superannuation namely, 31.08.2013, the applicant has filed the instant writ petition. 2. Brief facts leading to the filing of the present writ petition are as follows: Petitioner was appointed on 13.10.1976 as a Police Constable (Railways), and was promoted as Head Constable on 27.03.1991. Thereafter, he was again promoted as Assistant Sub-Inspector on 21.06.1994 and was further promoted as Sub-Inspector of Police on 08.08.2008. At the relevant point of time, the petitioner was working as Sub-Inspector of Police. 3. When the petitioner was working as Sub-Inspector of Police of Railways at Arasikere Police Station, a charge sheet was issued against him on certain allegation that the petitioner had misbehaved with the Women Constable of the Police Station, other lady employees and that he had demanded money from those ladies. A departmental inquiry was conducted, in which, the inquiry officer submitted his report holding that the first charge was not proved and the second charge as proved. A second show cause notice was issued by the Disciplinary Authority enclosing the report of the inquiry officer. Petitioner submitted his reply to the findings of the inquiry officer. The Disciplinary Authority, considering the material on record, without issuing any notice to the petitioner, disagreed with the findings of the inquiry officer with regard to the first charge, which the inquiry officer had held in favour of the petitioner, and imposed a penalty of compulsory retirement from service on 25.11.2009, holding both the charges as proved . 4. This order of compulsory retirement was challenged by the petitioner before the Tribunal in Application No.7864 of 2011. The application was allowed by an order of the Tribunal on 26.08.2013 holding that the Disciplinary Authority had not issued a notice before disagreeing with the findings of the inquiry officer which was in contravention of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Punjab National Bank Vs. The application was allowed by an order of the Tribunal on 26.08.2013 holding that the Disciplinary Authority had not issued a notice before disagreeing with the findings of the inquiry officer which was in contravention of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Punjab National Bank Vs. Kunj Behari Misra reported in AIR 1998 SC 2713 and the said order of compulsory retirement was set aside with a direction to take further action in the matter, in accordance with law and a further direction was issued to reinstate the petitioner into service, forthwith. It transpires that the petitioner retired from service on 31.8.2013 on attaining the age of superannuation. 5. Consequent upon the retirement of the petitioner, the Government by an order dated 07.04.2014, noticing the fact that the incident in the charge had taken place on 23.08.2008 and the petitioner had retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.08.2013, and the fact that the incident was more than four years preceding the date of retirement, passed an order that, it had no jurisdiction to hold the inquiry against the petitioner under Rule 214 (2)(b)(ii) of the Karnataka Civil Service Rules (hereinafter referred to as ‘Rules’, for short) and consequently, held that the petitioner was not guilty of the charges leveled against him. By a subsequent order on 03.06.2014, the State Government ordered that the period between 25.11.2009 and 31.8.2013 would be treated as diesnonin view of the fact that the petitioner had not discharged his duties during the said period. 6. The petitioner herein filed a Contempt Application in C.A. No.28/2014 before the Tribunal alleging that the Government had not complied with the directions issued by the Tribunal. On receipt of notice in the contempt application, the Government passed an order on 24.07.2014 holding that the petitioner was not entitled to any back wages between 25.11.2009 and 31.08.2013, in view of the period being treated as diesnonand on the ground that he had not discharged his duties during that period. A separate order was passed by the Government recovering a sum of Rs.6,150/plus the dearness allowance which was paid from 6.12.2009 to 31.08.2013. Challenging those orders, the petitioner again approached the Tribunal in Application No.8253 of 2014, in which the Tribunal stayed recovery of any amount from the petitioner. 7. A separate order was passed by the Government recovering a sum of Rs.6,150/plus the dearness allowance which was paid from 6.12.2009 to 31.08.2013. Challenging those orders, the petitioner again approached the Tribunal in Application No.8253 of 2014, in which the Tribunal stayed recovery of any amount from the petitioner. 7. The petitioner contended that once the order of compulsory retirement was set aside and reinstatement was directed, for all practical purposes, the period between the compulsory retirement and the reinstatement ought to have been treated by the Government as the period spent on duty and the same ought to have been included for the purpose of pension and pension benefits in the least. The Government filed its objections and vehemently opposed the application on the ground that the applicant was not exonerated on merits and that further inquiry could not be held in view of the legal prohibition obtaining in Rule 214 (2)(b)(ii) of the Rules and supported the impugned orders and justified the consequential recovery order passed by the Government. 8. Finally, the Tribunal, by its order dated 03.04.2018, allowed the application in part quashed the impugned orders but declared that the petitioner was not entitled to any back wages from the period between the compulsory retirement i.e., 25.11.2009 till the date of retirement i.e., 31.8.2013 on the ground that he had not worked. Being aggrieved by that portion of the order of the Tribunal declining to grant backwages, the petitioner has preferred the instant writ petition 9. We have heard Sri Subramanya Bhat. M, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri S.S. Mahendra, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the respondents. 10. The only issue that arises for our consideration is whether the petitioner was entitled to backwages for the period between the date of compulsory retirement i.e. 25.11.2009, till the date of actual retirement on attaining the age of superannuation i.e. 31.08.2013. 11. The petitioner was imposed the penalty of compulsory retirement from service on 25.11.2009. This order, which was challenged before the tribunal in application No.7864 of 2011, was allowed and the order of compulsory retirement was set aside and the further direction was issued to the Government to take further action in the matter and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law and to reinstate the petitioner into service forthwith. This order, which was challenged before the tribunal in application No.7864 of 2011, was allowed and the order of compulsory retirement was set aside and the further direction was issued to the Government to take further action in the matter and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law and to reinstate the petitioner into service forthwith. After the orders were passed by the tribunal on 26.08.2013, five days thereafter, on 31.08.2013, the petitioner retired on attaining the age of superannuation. 12. Since liberty was given to the Government to proceed in accordance with law, the Government noticed the fact that the petitioner had retired on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.08.2013 and the incident in the charge sheet was on 23.08.2008, the incident was more than four years preceding the date of retirement. Owing to this fact, an order was passed by the Government that since the incident was more than four years preceding the date of retirement, inquiry cannot be conducted under Rule 214 (2)(b)(ii) of the Rules in connection to the incident and therefore, held, the petitioner as not guilty of the charges leveled against him by its order dated 07.04.2014. Thus, it is a clear case where the Government took a conscious decision to hold the petitioner, not guilty of the charges in view of the statutory bar contained in Rule 214 (2)(b)(ii) of the Rules. 13. Once the Government itself decided that the petitioner had to be held not guilty of the charges, the subsequent orders that were passed treating the period between the date of compulsory retirement namely 25.11.2009 to the date of superannuation, namely 31.08.2013 as diesnonwould not arise and on that ground, declining to grant backwages on the principle of no workno pay, also was not available to the Government. 14. The learned Government Advocate would submit that in view of Sub-Rules (ii) and (iii) of Rule 99-A of the Rules, the petitioner would not be entitled to any backwages for the period that he was out of employment, as he was not fully exonerated of the charges, but inquiry could not be conducted against him in view of his intervening retirement and the bar under Rule 214 (2)(b)(ii) of the Rules. 15. We have perused the aforementioned Rules relied on by the learned Government Advocate. 15. We have perused the aforementioned Rules relied on by the learned Government Advocate. Sub-Rules (ii) and (iii) of Rule 99A of the Rules, relied on by the learned Government Advocate would not come to his aid as the very Rule indicate that a separate order has to be passed with regard to backwages when the order of dismissal, removal or compulsory retirement of a Government Servant is set aside by a court of law on the merits of the case. This Rule cannot be invoked in the fag situation. 16. In the instant case, the Government itself passed an order on 7.4.2014, that inquiry cannot be held against the petitioner and declares that the petitioner was not guilty. Once the petitioner was declared as not guilty of the charges leveled against him, it is axiomatic, that the petitioner continued to be in service from 25.11.2009 till the date of superannuation, namely 31.8.2013, for all purposes, including backwages. As it was a case where the Government had no jurisdiction to conduct inquiry and owing to that, the Government declared that the petitioner was not guilty of the charges and on no ground, much less on the ground that the petitioner had not discharged his duties, the Government could have declined to grant arrears of salary for the period between 25.11.2009 and 31.08.2013. Though there was no order of physical reinstatement of the petitioner before his retirement, he is deemed to have been reinstated in the light of the order of the Government dated 7.4.2014 holding the petitioner not guilty of the charges. 17. Thus, the Tribunal did not consider this fact of the matter that once the Government had declared that the petitioner was not guilty, it could not have denied backwages. Hence, that part of the order of the Tribunal, declining to grant backwages for the period between compulsory retirement dated 25.11.2009 and date of reinstatement dated 26.08.2013, warrants appropriate interference . 18. For the reasons stated hereinabove, we pass the following: (i) Writ petition is allowed in part. (ii) The petitioner shall be entitled to the backwages for the period from 25.11.2009 to 31.8.2013. (iii) Rest of the order of the Tribunal is sustained. (iv) The respondent shall comply with the order within twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. (iv) There shall be no order as to costs.