Research › Search › Judgment

Manipur High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 43 (MAN)

Mutum Shanti Kumar Singh v. Union of India

2021-09-16

M.V.MURALIDARAN

body2021
JUDGMENT W.P(C) No.214 of 2020 has been filed by the petitioner, Mutum Shanti Kumar Singh, seeking to quash the order dated 09.5.2019 issued by the fifth respondent, DIGP, Group Centre, as the same was issued in violation of FR 54- A(1), (ii) and (3) of the Fundamental Rules and to direct the respondents to regularize the period of absence with effect from 30.8.2000 till the date of reporting duty and to pay the entitled pay and allowance for the period of suspension i.e. from 13.4.2000 till his date of reporting duty. 2. W.P(C) No.215 of 2020 has been filed by the petitioner, Chabungbam Bison Singh, seeking to quash the order date 13.7.2019 issued by the 6th respondent, the Commandant, 27 Bn CRPF, as the same was issued in violation of FR 54-A(1),(ii) and (3) of the Fundamental Rules and to direct the respondents to regularize the period of absence with effect from 12.3.2007 till his date of reinstatement dated 13.11.2018 and to pay the entitled pay and allowances for the period from 12.3.2007 till his date of reporting duty. 3. Since the issue involved in both petitions is one and same, they were taken up together and disposed of by this common order. 4. The case of the petitioner in W.P(C) No.214 of 2020 is that the DIGP, Group Centre, without applying his mind and contrary to the stand taken in W.P.(C) No.88 of 2013 and pending disciplinary proceedings issued the impugned order dated 09.5.2019 fixing the pay of the petitioner by applying dies-non as “no work no pay” for the period 30.8.2000 to 20.11.2011 as a penalty. According to the petitioner, it is clear that the DIGP, Group Centre has issued the order impugned before the conclusion of the departmental enquiry and it cannot decide the fixation of pay and cannot forfeit arrears of the petitioner by violating FR 54-A(1),(ii) and (3) of the Fundamental Rules. According to the petitioner, it is clear that the DIGP, Group Centre has issued the order impugned before the conclusion of the departmental enquiry and it cannot decide the fixation of pay and cannot forfeit arrears of the petitioner by violating FR 54-A(1),(ii) and (3) of the Fundamental Rules. In fact, by the order dated 27.7.2000 in W.A.No.30 of 2005, the Hon’ble Division Bench of the Imphal Bench of Gauhati High Court clearly held that if fresh departmental proceedings is held against the petitioner, he shall be treated as under suspension from the date of the first suspension and if no such enquiry is held within the prescribed period, the petitioner is to be reinstated to his service and appropriate order shall be passed by the concerned authority regarding his entitlements under the law. While so, contrary to the said direction, the DIGP, Group Centre, issued the impugned order and hence, the petitioner has filed the writ petition challenging the same. 5. Similarly, the case of the petitioner in W.P. (C) No.215 of 2020 is that the impugned order dated 13.7.2019 was issued not in compliance with the order of this Court as well as the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the question of settlement of regularisation of the service of the petitioner during the period of absence following reinstatement has to be done in strict compliance of the provisions of FR 54-A(1),(ii) and (3) of the Fundamental Rules. However, in contravention of the statutory provisions of the Fundamental Rules, the Commandant, 27 Bn CRPF, issued the impugned order, which is arbitrary. Hence, the petitioner has filed the writ petition seeking to quash the same and to direct the respondent authorities to regularise the period of absence w.e.f. 12.3.2007 till his date of reinstatement dated 13.11.2018 and to pay the entitled pay and allowances. 6. The respondents in W.P.No.214 of 2020 filed affidavit-in-opposition stating that the petitioner and two others were suspended for their misconduct and were placed under suspension w.e.f. 13.4.2000. Thereafter, a preliminary enquiry was ordered against them and on completion of the departmental enquiry, all three were dismissed from service w.e.f. 30.8.2000. Challenging the same, the petitioner preferred statutory appeal to the DIGP, Range and the same was rejected. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred a revision and the same was also rejected by the revisional authority. Thereafter, a preliminary enquiry was ordered against them and on completion of the departmental enquiry, all three were dismissed from service w.e.f. 30.8.2000. Challenging the same, the petitioner preferred statutory appeal to the DIGP, Range and the same was rejected. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred a revision and the same was also rejected by the revisional authority. Challenging the same, the petitioner filed W.P.(C) No.297 of 2002 before the Imphal Bench of Gauhati High Court and by the order dated 08.2.2005, the writ petition was allowed. 7. Aggrieved by the said order, the respondents preferred W.A.No.30 of 2005 and the same was disposed of on 27.7.2010. Thereafter, the respondents filed SLP No.7363 of 2011 before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Pursuant to the interim order granted in the SLP, the petitioner was taken on the strength from 21.1.2011 and he was placed under suspension w.e.f. 21.1.2011 FN pending enquiry. Vide order dated 20.4.2011, the suspension was revoked w.e.f. 20.4.2011, subject to the final outcome of the SLP preferred by the department. On 24.2.2012, the Hon’ble Supreme Court, granted stay and in view of the stay order, by the order dated 5.7.2012, the respondents cancelled the office order dated 31.12.2010 by which conditional re-instatement of the petitioner was ordered and status of punishment of dismissal from service was also restored. 8. It is stated that the SLP subsequently was converted into as Civil Appeal No.2607 of 2012 and by the order dated 08.6.2018, the Civil Appeal was dismissed. After the dismissal of the Civil Appeal, a fresh enquiry was initiated against the petitioner by appointing the Enquiry Officer and the Presenting Officer and after completion of the enquiry, by the order dated 12.9.2019, the disciplinary authority, in exercise of powers vested under Section 11(1) of CRPF Act, 1949 read with Rule 27(a) of CRPF Rules, imposed a penalty of stoppage of annual increment for three years without cumulative effect and the period from 30.8.2000 to 21.1.2011 has been regularized as non-qualifying service. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has preferred an appeal and the same was also rejected on 12.6.2020. It is also stated that the petitioner has not filed any appeal against the order dated 12.6.2020. Hence, prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. 9. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has preferred an appeal and the same was also rejected on 12.6.2020. It is also stated that the petitioner has not filed any appeal against the order dated 12.6.2020. Hence, prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. 9. Denying the averments, the respondents in W.P.(C) No.215 of 2020 filed affidavit-in-opposition stating that while the petitioner was in service, he committed an act of misconduct of negligence of duty and disobedience of lawful orders and a warrant of arrest was issued to apprehend him by the CJM-cum-Commandant, 27 Bn CRPF through SP, Imphal East. However, neither he was apprehended by civil police nor he reported on his own, the petitioner was declared as deserter from service from 12.3.2007 and a memorandum of charges was sent to his home. Since the petitioner failed to respond and on expiry of the 15 days, an Enquiry Officer was appointed to conduct an enquiry. Since the petitioner failed to appear before the Enquiry Officer nor sent any communication, an ex parte departmental enquiry was conducted against him and based on the evidences of the prosecution witnesses, the petitioner was dismissed from service w.e.f. 20.5.2008. 10. It is stated that challenging the order of dismissal, the petitioner filed W.P.(C) No.497 of 2011 before the Imphal Bench of Gauhati High Court and by the order dated 29.5.2013, the said writ petition was allowed setting aside the order dated 20.5.2008 with liberty to the authorities to proceed against the petitioner in a fresh departmental proceedings within the period of four months, in which event, the petitioner should be deemed to be under suspension from the date of first suspension. It was also observed that any final order that may be passed will also be subject to any order that may be passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the pending SLP preferred against the decision of the Hon’ble Division Bench in W.A.No.30 of 2005. Aggrieved by the said order, the respondents preferred Civil Appeal No.1800 of 2014 and the said Civil Appeal was heard along with Civil Appeal Nos.2608 of 2012, 6745 of 2013, 9373-9374 of 2013. Aggrieved by the said order, the respondents preferred Civil Appeal No.1800 of 2014 and the said Civil Appeal was heard along with Civil Appeal Nos.2608 of 2012, 6745 of 2013, 9373-9374 of 2013. By the judgment dated 02.7.2018, the Civil Appeals were dismissed holding that it shall be open for the respondents to proceed with the inquiry afresh from the stage as directed by the High Court and it shall be open for the respondents to decide an arrear of pay and allowances of the petitioner. 11. It is stated in the affidavit-in-opposition that pursuant to the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the petitioner was reinstated and taken on the strength of the Unit from 14.11.2018 and an Enquiry Officer was appointed to inquire into the charges. It is stated that on completion of the enquiry and also considering the conduct of the petitioner, the Commandant, 27 Bn CRPF, in exercise of powers vested under Section 11(1) of the CRPF Act, 1949 read with Rule 27(a) of CRPF Rules, 1955, issued the impugned order dated 13.7.2019 to the effect of stoppage of increment for 3 years with cumulative effect and the desertion period i.e. 12.3.2007 to preceding the date of reinstatement i.e. 13.11.2018 be treated as dies-non and the petitioner will not be entitled for any pay and allowances for the said period. Thereafter, the said order was clarified vide order dated 8.4.2020 to the effect that stoppage of one increment for 3 years without cumulative effect and the desertion period be treated as dies- non and the petitioner will not be entitled for any pay and allowances for the said period. However, the said period was condoned for the purpose of pension as per CCS (Pension) Rules 25 and 28 read with GOI decision. It is stated that in the present case, not only the inquiry was held, but also punishment was awarded and therefore, FR-54A(1) is not applicable in the facts of the case and prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. 12. It is stated that in the present case, not only the inquiry was held, but also punishment was awarded and therefore, FR-54A(1) is not applicable in the facts of the case and prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. 12. Assailing the orders impugned in these writ petitions, the learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.214 of 2020 was dismissed from service on the ground that on 30.8.2000, the petitioner and two others left the STF Camp, Dak Bungalow without obtaining any permission from the competent authority and aggrieved by the order of dismissal, the petitioner approached the Gauhati High Court, Imphal Bench by filing W.P.(C) No.297 of 2002 and the Gauhati High Court, vide order dated 08.2.2005, set side the order of dismissal dated 30.8.2000 by directing the respondent authorities to reinstate the petitioner forthwith. He would submit that being aggrieved by the order dated 08.2.2005 passed in the said writ petition, the respondent authorities have preferred W.A.No.30 of 2005 and the Hon’ble Division Bench of the Gauhati High Court, vide order dated 27.7.2010, dismissed the writ appeal with certain modification of the Single Judge order. 13. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that pursuant to the order of the Hon’ble Division Bench of the Gauhati High Court, the petitioner Mutum Shanti Kumar Singh was reinstated into service on 31.12.2010 with certain conditions. Aggrieved by the said order, the respondents have preferred SLP and the SLP thereafter was converted as Civil Appeal No.2607 of 2012 and the said Civil Appeal was dismissed on 08.6.2018. The learned counsel submitted that the impugned order dated 09.5.2019 was issued pending disciplinary proceedings, which is in violation of FR 54-A(1)(ii) and (3) of the Fundamental Rules and also contrary to the order of the Hon’ble Division Bench of the Gauhati High Court as well as the Hon’ble Supreme Court and also without applying the mind. 14. As far as W.P.(C) No.215 of 2020 is concerned, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.215 of 2020 namely Chabungbam Bison Singh was dismissed from service on the ground of the misconduct for desertion without obtaining any permission from the competent authority on 20.5.2008. 14. As far as W.P.(C) No.215 of 2020 is concerned, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.215 of 2020 namely Chabungbam Bison Singh was dismissed from service on the ground of the misconduct for desertion without obtaining any permission from the competent authority on 20.5.2008. Aggrieved by the order of dismissal, the petitioner preferred W.P.(C) No.497 of 2011 before the Imphal Bench of Gauhati High Court and by the order dated 29.5.2013, the High Court quashed the order of dismissal dated 20.5.2008 by directing the respondent authorities to reinstate the petitioner forthwith. He would submit that consequent to the orders passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.1800 of 2014, the respondent authorities issued the reinstatement order on 14.11.2018 and departmental enquiry was proceeded against the petitioner. 15. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the petitioner Chabungbam Bison Singh was reinstated back into service and that the punishment commensurate to the offence alleged to have been committed was awarded vide impugned order dated 13.7.2019 and that the impugned order has been issued contrary to the judgment dated 29.5.2013. 16. The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that as per the orders of this Court as well as the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the respondent authorities are duty bound to treat the period from the date of dismissal to the date of reinstatement as duty for all purposes and to pay full pay and allowances for the period to which the petitioner could have been entitled had he not been dismissed as the case may be as per FR 54- A(1)(3). 17. The common argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that that FR 54-A of the Fundamental Rules deals with regularisation of service of Government servants during the period of absence and payment of salary and allowances of Government servants reinstated back into service consequent on quashing/setting aside of dismissal, removal or compulsory retirement of Government servant. 18. The learned counsel for the petitioners then submitted that the whole illegal, arbitrary and discrimination actions of the respondent authorities has violated the constitutional rights of the petitioners and has violated the right of the petitioners guaranteed under Articles 14, 16(1) and (2) of the Constitution of India and FR 54-A(1), (ii) and (3) of the Fundamental Rules. 19. 18. The learned counsel for the petitioners then submitted that the whole illegal, arbitrary and discrimination actions of the respondent authorities has violated the constitutional rights of the petitioners and has violated the right of the petitioners guaranteed under Articles 14, 16(1) and (2) of the Constitution of India and FR 54-A(1), (ii) and (3) of the Fundamental Rules. 19. The learned counsel for the petitioners next submitted that the petitioners were not engaged in any gainful employment either in any private or Government institutions at the relevant point of time and therefore, they are entitled back wages as claimed in the writ petitions. In support, the learned counsel relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Deepali Gundu Surwase v. Kranti Junior Adhtaoaj Nagavudtaka (D.ED.) and others, reported in (2013) 10 SCC 324 . 20. Per contra, Mr. S. Suresh, learned ASG appearing for the respondents submitted that FR 54-A(1) is not applicable in the case where the dismissal, removal or compulsory retirement of a Government servant reinstated without holding any further inquiry. In the present writ petitions, not only inquiry was held, but also punishments were awarded. He would submit that FR 54-A(2)(ii) is to be read in the context of FR 54-A(2)(i) which provides that where the dismissal, removal or compulsory retirement of a Government servant is set aside by a Court solely on the ground of noncompliance with the requirement of Clause (1) or (2) of Article 311 of the Constitution, and where he is not exonerated on merits. Similarly, FR 54-A(3) is also not applicable in the facts of the case put forth by the respective petitioners for the reason that FR 54-A(3) is applicable only those case where the dismissal, removal or compulsory retirement of a Government servant is set aside by the Court on merits of the case, which is not the case in respect of the petitioners herein. 21. The learned ASG further submitted that in as much as grievance of the petitioners is concerned, a grievance redressal forum is provided under the provisions of CRPF Act and Rules thereon. However, the petitioners have failed to avail of the said remedy. He would submit that the plea of the petitioners are nothing but misconception of fact and law and as such the writ petitions are not maintainable and the same are liable for dismissal. 22. However, the petitioners have failed to avail of the said remedy. He would submit that the plea of the petitioners are nothing but misconception of fact and law and as such the writ petitions are not maintainable and the same are liable for dismissal. 22. This Court considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned ASG appearing for the respondents and also perused the materials available on record. 23. The grievance of the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.214 of 2020 is that his absence from 30.8.2000 to 20.1.2011 should be regularised and to pay the entitled back wages of pay and allowances for the period of suspension from 13.4.2000 till his reporting duty as per FR 54-A(1)(ii) and (3) of the Fundamental Rules. Similarly, the prayer of the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.215 of 2020 is that the respondent authorities should regularise the period of absence from 12.3.2007 till his date of reinstatement i.e. on 13.11.2018 and to pay the entitled pay and allowances for the suspension period from 12.3.2007 till his date of reporting as per FR 54-A(1)(ii) and (3) of the Fundamental Rules. 24. For proper appreciation, certain facts need to be mentioned, particularly, the earlier round of litigations instituted by the petitioners. The gist of the earlier round of litigations is as follows: (i) W.P.(C) No.214 of 2020 – The petitioner, Mutum Shanti Kumar Singh, joined the service as Constable general duty in the CRPF in the year 1994. He was dismissed from service on 30.8.2000 after departmental enquiry. Thereafter, in 2002, he filed W.P.(C) No.297 of 2002 before the Gauhati High Court challenging the order of dismissal dated 30.8.2000. By the order dated 08.02.2005, W.P.(C) No.297 of 2002 came to be allowed with a direction to reinstate him with consequential benefits. Aggrieved by the said order, the respondent authorities preferred W.A.No.30 of 2005 and the appeal was dismissed by the Division Bench of the Gauhati High Court on 27.7.2010. On 31.12.2010, the respondent authorities issued reinstatement order to Mutum Shanti Kumar Singh, however, the suspension was not revoked and subsequently, the suspension was revoked on 20.04.2011, subject to the outcome of the SLP preferred by the respondent authorities against the order made in W.A.No.30 of 2005. On 31.12.2010, the respondent authorities issued reinstatement order to Mutum Shanti Kumar Singh, however, the suspension was not revoked and subsequently, the suspension was revoked on 20.04.2011, subject to the outcome of the SLP preferred by the respondent authorities against the order made in W.A.No.30 of 2005. On 24.1.2011, the petitioner was kept under suspension and by the order dated 20.4.2011, the Commandant revoked the suspension of the petitioner with a condition that the revocation from suspension is subject to the final outcome of the SLP preferred by the respondent authorities. During pendency of the SLP and disciplinary proceedings, the respondent authorities have given the basic grade pay salary to the post of Constable general duty a sum of Rs.6460/- and its total emolument was given a sum of Rs.16,720/- with effect from his service reinstatement. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed W.P.(C) No.88 of 2013 contending that a similar person was enjoying the basic grade pay of Rs.8880/- and his total emolument is Rs.23,030/- with a different basic pay in the same cadre of the petitioner without any reason. During the pendency of W.P.(C) No.88 of 2013, by the order dated 8.6.2018, the Hon’ble Supreme Court dismissed the Civil Appeal No.2607 of 2012, which was arising out of W.A.No.30 of 2005, granting liberty to the respondent authorities to pass an order, after following duty process of law, for imposing minor penalty against him. On 1.3.2019, W.P.(C) No.88 of 2013, came to be disposed of by giving liberty to make a further representation and the respondent authorities were directed to consider and dispose of the same within a period of 8 weeks from the date of receipt of the representation. On 09.5.2019, the fifth respondent DIGP, Group Centre, issued the impugned order holding that the period of absent from 30.8.2000 to 20.1.2011 regularised as dies-non as “no work no pay”, which is challenged in the writ petition. (ii) W.P.(C) No.215 of 2020 - The petitioner, Chabungban Bison Single was appointed as CT/FIR in CRPF at Langjing GC CRPF, Imphal, Manipur and on 12.03.2007, he was deserved from the camp without obtaining any permission from the competent authority. On 20.5.2008, the petitioner was dismissed from service. Challenging the order of dismissal, he preferred W.P.(C) No.497 of 2011 by relying on the judgment and order passed in W.A.No.30 of 2005 by the Division Bench of Imphal Bench of Gauhati High Court. On 20.5.2008, the petitioner was dismissed from service. Challenging the order of dismissal, he preferred W.P.(C) No.497 of 2011 by relying on the judgment and order passed in W.A.No.30 of 2005 by the Division Bench of Imphal Bench of Gauhati High Court. After the dismissal of the Civil Appeal preferred against the judgment in W.A.No.30 of 2005 and other connected matters, by the impugned order dated 13.7.2019, the Commandant, 27 Bn CRPF issued penalty of stoppage of increment for three years with cumulative effect after conclusion of the departmental proceedings held by the department and also the desertion period i.e. 12.3.2007 to the preceding date of reinstatement i.e. 13.11.2018 treated as dies-non and the petitioner will not be entitled to any pay and allowances for the said period. 25. According to the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.214 of 2020, the DIGP, Group Centre, without applying his mind and contrary to the stand taken in W.P.(C) No.88 of 2013 and also during the pendency of the disciplinary proceedings had issued the impugned order dated 9.5.2019 fixing the pay by applying dies-non as “no work no pay” for the period 30.8.2000 to 20.1.2011 as a penalty. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the DIGP, Group Centre, issued the impugned order before the conclusion of the departmental inquiry and it cannot decide the fixation of pay and also cannot forfeit arrears of the petitioner by violating FR 54-A(1)(3) of the Fundamental Rules. Similar line of argument was also made in the case of the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.215 of 2020. 26. The learned counsel for the petitioners also brought the attention of the Court to the order passed in W.A.No.30 of 2005 to the effect that “if fresh departmental proceeding is held against the petitioner, he shall be treated as under suspension from the date of the first suspension. If no such enquiry is held within the prescribed period, the petitioner is to be reinstated to his service and appropriate order shall be passed by the concerned authority regarding his entitlements under the law”. If no such enquiry is held within the prescribed period, the petitioner is to be reinstated to his service and appropriate order shall be passed by the concerned authority regarding his entitlements under the law”. Thus, the learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that as per the order of the High Court as well as the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the respondent authorities are duty bound to treat the period from the date of dismissal to the date of reinstatement as duty for all purposes and to pay the full pay and allowances for the period to which the petitioners could have been entitled had they not been dismissed as the case may as per FR 54-A(1)(3) of the Fundamental Rules. 27. It is pertinent to extract FR.54-A(1), (2) (ii) and (3) of Fundamental Rules, which provides: “F.R.54-A(1). Where the dismissal, removal or compulsory retirement of a Government servant is set aside by a Court of Law and such Government servant is reinstated without holding any further inquiry, the period of absence from duty shall be regularized and the Government servant shall be paid pay and allowances in accordance with the provisions of sub-rule (2) or (3) subject to the directions, if any, of the Court. F.R.54-A(2)(ii). The period of intervening between the date of dismissal, removal or compulsory retirement including the period of suspension preceding such dismissal, removal or compulsory retirement, as the case may be, and the date of judgment of the Court shall be regularized in accordance with the provisions contained in sub-rule (5) of Rule 54. F.R.54-A(3). If the dismissal, removal or compulsory retirement of a Government servant is set aside by the Court on the merits of the case, the period intervening between the date of dismissal, removal or compulsory retirement including the period of suspension preceding such dismissal, removal or compulsory retirement, as the case may be, and the date of retirement shall be treated as duty for all purposes and he shall be paid the full pay and allowances for the period, to which he would have been entitled, had he not been dismissed, removed or compulsorily retired or suspended prior to such dismissal, removal or compulsory retirement, as the case may be.” 28. Thus, F.R.54-A(1) is applicable in the case where the dismissal, removal or compulsory retirement of a Government servant is set aside by a Court of Law and such Government servant is reinstated without holding any further inquiry. 29. Admittedly, in the case of the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.214 of 2020, after the order impugned dated 09.5.2019 passed, not only inquiry was held, but also punishment was awarded vide order dated 12.9.2019 as per the directions of this Court by imposing punishment of stoppage of annual increment for three years without cumulative effect by the Commandant, 27 Bn CRPF. On a perusal of the material produced before this Court, it is clear that aggrieved by the order dated 12.9.2019, the petitioner has preferred statutory appeal and the appellate authority has rejected the appeal as devoid of merit on 12.6.2020 by giving liberty to prefer a petition for revision under Rule 29 of CRPF Rules to the next superior authority i.e. Sector IG, CRPF. However, the petitioner has not preferred any revision and has allowed the appellate order to attain finality. 30. Thus, as stated supra, in the case of the petitioner Mutum Shanti Kumar Singh, not only inquiry was held but also punishment was awarded and therefore, as rightly argued by the learned A.S.G., appearing for the respondent authorities, F.R.54-A(1) is not applicable to the case of the said petitioner. 31. According to the learned Government counsel, F.R.54-A(2)(ii) is to be read in the context of F.R.54-A(2)(i), which provides that where the dismissal, removal or compulsory retirement of a Government servant is set aside by a Court solely on the ground of non-compliance with the requirement of Clause (1) or Clause (2) of Article 311 of the Constitution and where he is not exonerated on merits. Thus, it is clear that the case of the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.214 of 2020 is not fall within the ambit of F.R.54-A(2)(ii) as the conditions as contained in F.R.54-A(2)(i) are absent. The learned Government counsel also submitted that the provision of F.R.54-A(3) is not applicable for the reason that F.R.54-A(3) is applicable only those cases where the dismissal, removal or compulsory retirement of a Government servant is set aside by the Court on merits of the case, which is not the case of the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.214 of 2020. This Court finds some force in the said submissions of the learned ASG. This Court finds some force in the said submissions of the learned ASG. Admittedly, the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.214 of 2020 has failed to approach the appropriate authority under the provisions of CRPF Act and Rules framed thereon before approaching this Court. 32. It is pertinent to note that after the order of punishment imposed dated 12.9.2019, the petitioner Shanti Kumar Singh preferred an appeal before the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Range, CRPF, Imphal, Manipur under Rule 28 of the CRPF Rules. In the grounds of appeal, the petitioner stated as under: “7. That, the said Order dated 12/9/19 (at Annexure-D/5) awarding the penalty of stoppage of Annual Increment for three years without cumulative effect, is ambiguous, in so far as the order has not expressly mention the period from which the time frame of 3 (three) years as mentioned in the order has to be reckon from. It is not clear as to whether the period of 3 (three) years has to be reckon retrospectively from the date of reinstatement i.e. 31/12/2010 or from the date of revocation of the suspension vide order dated 20/4/11 or prospectively from the date of issuance of the Order dated 12/09/2019. …. 11. That, the undersigned have become eligible to be considered for promotion to the next higher post but because of the dismissal and suspensions and due to the pendency of the cases before the Hon’ble High Court and the Hon’ble Supreme Court, undersigned was not given promotion to the next higher post and since the dismissal had been quashed and set aside by the Hon’ble High Court and the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, undersigned case can be considered for promotion to the next higher post from the date of attaining eligibility in view of the FR- 54-A(1) (3) read with Rule 25 of the CCS (Pension) Rules.” 33. It is to be mentioned that in the appeal preferred by him, the petitioner Mutum Shanti Kumar Singh stated that he became eligible to be considered for promotion to the next higher post and he has not stated anything about the prayer for regularisation of the period of absence from 30.8.2000 till 20.1.2011 and to pay the back wages of pay and allowances for the period of suspension w.e.f. 13.4.2000 till the date of reporting duty. Only after waiting for a considerable period of time and pending disposal of the appeal preferred by him, he has filed the present writ petition praying to regularise the period of absence and to pay back wages as aforesaid. Admittedly, the appeal order dated 12.6.2020 deals with the merits of articles of charges and the departmental proceedings. Though the order dated 12.6.2020 is not under challenge in the instant writ petition, in order to appreciate the stand taken by the petitioner Mutum Shanti Kumar Singh, the same is mentioned in this order. 34. It is pertinent to mention that earlier the petitioner Mutum Shanti Kumar Singh filed W.P.(C) No.88 of 2013 seeking direction on the respondent authorities to pay the basic pay scale of Rs.8800/- to gross emolument amount of Rs.23030/- along with permissible annual increment with effect from 31.12.2010 to till date as the similar person enjoying the same scale in the same cadre instead of basic pay of Rs.6460/- to gross emolument amount of Rs.16720/-. By the order dated 01.3.2019, this Court passed the following order: “8. In view of the above, the petitioner is given liberty to submit further representation along with a copy of this order. Respondents are directed to consider and dispose of the same within a period of 8 weeks from the date of receipt of the representation along with the copy of this order. 9. Writ Petition stands disposed of as above.” 35. It is also pertinent to note that the petitioner Mutum Shanti Kumar Singh has not submitted any representation. However, in compliance of the order dated 01.3.2019 passed in W.P.No.88 of 2013, the DIGP, Group Centre, examined the case of the petitioner and passed the impugned order dated 09.5.2019 holding that the petitioner Mutum Shanti Kumar Singh was not in service from 30.8.2000 to 20.1.2011 and the said period was regularised as dies- non as “no work no pay” and accordingly amended his pay. 36. According to the learned Government counsel, considering all aspects of the matter and also taking note of the directions issued by this Court in the earlier writ petitions, the impugned order was passed. The learned counsel also brought the attention of this Court to the order passed in W.P.No.297 of 2002 dated 8.2.2005 that the writ petition has been allowed with a direction to reinstate the petitioner in service forthwith. The learned counsel also brought the attention of this Court to the order passed in W.P.No.297 of 2002 dated 8.2.2005 that the writ petition has been allowed with a direction to reinstate the petitioner in service forthwith. This Court further directed to take appropriate decision qua arrears of pay and allowances for the period from the date of passing of the dismissal order dated 30.8.2000 till his reinstatement under the orders of this Court. He would submit that the DIGP, Group Centre, who is the appropriate authority, considered the period from 30.8.2000 to 20.1.2011 as non-qualifying service and for taking such decision, the said authority has given reasoning in the impugned order. 37. It is pertinent to extract the relevant portion of the impugned order, which reads as under: “5. On checking of S/Books of No.941150121 CT/GD Jinat Anth of 86 Bn who joined CRPF on 10/01/1994 i.e. same day when No.941150344 Ex CT/GD M.Shanti Kumar Singh, joined CRPF. It is found that, he is getting pay Rs.38100/-. No.941150121 CT/GD Jinat Anth continue in service since 10/01/1994 without any NQS, where as details of NQS period of Writ petitioner No.941150344 CT/GD Mutum Shanti Kumar Sing is as under which are regularized in the light of Court Order dated 08/02/2015 on WP (C) No297 of 2002 (concerned authority shall decide and take appropriate decision about the arrear pay and allowances i.e. pay and allowances of the writ petitioner for the period from the date of passing that impugned dismissal order dated 30/08/2000 till his reinstatement under the order of court.) Total period Remarks In service 10/01/1994 to 12/04/2000 06 Yrs, 03 Months & 02 days Qualifying Service Suspension period 13/04/2000 to 29/08/20000 04 Months & 16 days, regularized as Such for al purpose. (NQS) Non Qualifying service Dismissed from service 30/08/2000 to 20/01/2011 10 Yrs, 04 Months & 20 days regularized as Dies Non as No Work No Pay Non Qualifying service Re-instated in Service 21/01/2011 -- -- Suspension period 21/01/2011 to 19/04/2011 89 days regularized as such Non Qualifying service In Service 21/04/2011 to 04/07/2012 01 Years, 02 Months & 13 days Qualifying Service Intervening period 05/07/2012 to 20/09/2012 02 Months & 15 days, treated as period spent on duty for al purpose Qualifying Service 2nd joining 21/09/2012 and there after Qualifying Service 6. On the basis of above qualifying service pay of No.941150344 CT/GD Mutum Shanti Kumar Singh had been fixed as under from date of his re-instatement in service vide GC CRPF, Imphal Office Order No.- P.1-03/2019- SRC-11/86 dated 30/03/2019 after audited by IAP-VI Guwahati on 14/02/2019. Indvl awarded punishment of “Dismissal from service” wef 30/08/2000 (AN) and his Suspension period wef 13/04/2000 (AN) to 30/08/2000 has been treated “As such” for al purpose vide 27 Bn O/O No.P.VII-10/2000-27-27-EC-II dated 30/08/2000. Official was re-instated in service wef 21/01/2011 (FN) in compliance of court order mentioned in 27 Bn O/O No.J.II-2/2012-27-EC-II dated 05/07/2012 and 25/10/2012. Hence Indvl was not in service from 30/08/2000 to 20/01/2011 Under 6th CPC his pay fixed in PB-I as on 21/01/2011 (5200-20200+GP2000) As per fitment table, Entry B/Pay of CT/GD (i.e. 6460+2000) 6460+2000 Gdt A/1 wef 01/07/2012 6720+2000 Gdt A/1 wef 01/07/2013 6990+2000 Gdt A/1 wef 01/07/2014 7260+2000 Gdt A/1 wef 01/07/2015 7540+2000 Under 7 CPC his Pay fixed wef 01/01/2016 (7540+2000x2.57=24517.8 25200/- Gdt A/1 wef 01/07/2016 26000/- Gdt A/1 wef 01/07/2017 26800/- Gdt A/1 wef 01/07/2018 27600 In the light of above S/Book of NO.941150344 CT/GD Mutum Shanti Kumar was against scrutinized and after considering his NQS period found that pay fixed vide this GC office order No.P.1-03/2019-SRC-11/86 dated 30/03/2019 is correct, but in the light of DIGP (Esst) Dte., Genl signal No.P.1-1/2015- Estt (DA-9) dated 19/02/2015 his pay from 01/01/1998 to 01.01.2000 is hereby amended as under:- For Read Gdt A/1 wef 01/01/1997 (P/9) 2890/- Gdt A/1 wef 01/01/1997 2890/- Pay as on 10/10/1997 (P/9) 3050/- Pay as on 10/10/1997 3050/- Gdt A/1 wef 01/01/1998 (P/9) 3125/- Gdt A/1 wef 01/01/1998 3125/- Gdt A/1 wef 01/01/1999 (P/10) 3200/- Gdt A/1 wef 01/01/1999 3200/- Dismissed from service wef.30/08/2000 & reinstated on 21/01/2011 Regularized as no work no pay (Dies Non) (30/08/2000 to 20/01/2011) No change required in Pay wef. 21/01/2011 and onwards. Pay fixed vide this office order No.P.I-03/2019-SRC-II/86 dated 30/03/2019 will stand. 38. Admittedly, the order impugned dated 9.5.2019 has been passed by the DIGP, Group Centre in terms of the orders of the High Court as well as the Hon’ble Supreme Court and also after applying his mind. 21/01/2011 and onwards. Pay fixed vide this office order No.P.I-03/2019-SRC-II/86 dated 30/03/2019 will stand. 38. Admittedly, the order impugned dated 9.5.2019 has been passed by the DIGP, Group Centre in terms of the orders of the High Court as well as the Hon’ble Supreme Court and also after applying his mind. That apart, only after analysing in detail and on the factual scenario of the matter that by the order dated 16.4.2019 the period from 30.8.2000 to 20.1.2011 was regularized as dies-non as “no work no pay”, the DIGP, Group Centre, came to the conclusion as non-qualifying service for the period from 30.8.2000 to 20.1.2011 and fixed the pay accordingly. Admittedly, the order dated 16.4.2019 is not under challenge by the petitioner. No valid grounds have been made out by the petitioner Mutum Shanti Kumar Singh to interfere with the impugned order dated 09.5.2019 and therefore, the impugned order dated 9.5.2019 does not call for any interference. There is also no gross violation of the statutory provisions while passing the impugned order and in fact, the impugned order dated 09.5.2019 was passed in terms of the Courts order. 39. Coming to the impugned order assailed in W.P.(C) No.215 of 2020 is concerned, the petitioner Chabungbam Bison Singh canvassed his case similar to the line of the case of the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.214 of 2020 by relying upon the decisions of the Division Bench in W.A.No.30 of 2005 and the Civil Appeal Nos.2607 of 2012 etc. batch and sought to set aside the order impugned dated 13.7.2019 and to direct the respondents to regularise the period of absence from 12.3.2007 till his date of reinstatement dated 13.11.2018 and to pay the entitled pay and allowances. 40. It appears that on completion of the inquiry and considering the work and conduct of the petitioner Chabungbam Bison Singh, the Commandant, in exercise of power under Section 11(1) of CRPF Act read with Rule 27(a) of CRPF Rules passed the order of stoppage of increment for three years with cumulative effect and also the period of desertion ordered to be treated as dies non and the petitioner was not entitled for any pay and allowances for the said period. 41. The operative portion of the order impugned reads thus: “17. 41. The operative portion of the order impugned reads thus: “17. On the basis of statements of prosecution witnesses, evidence on record, all pros and cons of the case, I have to the conclusion that the charges framed against the delinquent are proved in preponderance of probability but by considering the work and conduct of the individual from the date of Re-instatement i.e. 14/11/2018 to date (Appx. 8 months) is found outstanding. Keeping in view his case sympathetically as dismissal/removal from service will be a very big punishment for his family as he is the only person to earn livelihood. Hence, having a lenient view to No.990270017 CT/FTR CH. Bison Singh of this unit, I, the undersigned in exercise of powers vested in me under section 11(1) of CRPF Act 1949 read with Rule 27(a) of CRPF Rules 1955 pass the following orders:- i) Stoppage of increment for 3 years with cumulative effect. ii) Absence/desertion period i.e. 12/03/2007 to preceding date of Re-instatement i.e. 13/11/2018 total 4,265 days be treated as Dies-Non and individual will not be entitled for any pay and allowances for the said period.” 42. It appears that the said order was dated 13.7.2019. The impugned order dated 13.7.2019 was subsequently amended by the order dated 08.4.2020 the effect of stoppage of one increment for three years without cumulative effect and the desertion period from 12.3.2007 to 13.11.2018 be treated as dies-non and the petitioner will not be entitled for any pay and allowances for the said period. However, the above mentioned period condoned for the purpose of pension. The petitioner Chabungbam Bison Singh has not shown any grievance over the order dated 08.4.2020 and admitted the said punishment. Since the impugned order dated 13.07.2019 was passed by the Commandant after appreciating the materials and in terms of the orders of the High Court and the Hon’ble Supreme Court, there is no need to interfere with the same. That apart the grounds urged by the petitioner are not valid grounds to interfere with the same. In view of the findings arrived at by this Court in the earlier paragraphs, the order impugned in W.P.(C) No.215 of 2020 does not call for interference. 43. That apart the grounds urged by the petitioner are not valid grounds to interfere with the same. In view of the findings arrived at by this Court in the earlier paragraphs, the order impugned in W.P.(C) No.215 of 2020 does not call for interference. 43. As far as the regularization of the period and payment of back wages sought by the petitioners are concerned, since the petitioners were not working for the said period and also the said period dies-non, the authority concerned has rightly regularized the period 30.8.2000 to 20.1.2011 as dies-non as “no work no pay” and consequently, by the impugned order held the said period as non-qualifying service and has not awarded back wages. The claim of back wages canvassed by the petitioners prima facie appears no merit. However, since the petitioners claimed back wages, in order to appreciate the case of the petitioners and the respondent authorities, it is necessary to deal with the same. 44. Admittedly, no specific averment has been made in the supporting affidavits that the petitioners were not gainfully employed or were employed on lesser wages at the relevant point of time. 45. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the cases in which the competent Court or Tribunal finds that the employer has acted in gross violation of the statutory provisions and/or the principles of natural justice or is guilty of victimizing the employee or workman, then the Court or Tribunal concerned will be fully justified in directing payment of full back wages. He would also submits that in cases of award of back wages, the superior Courts should not exercise power under Article 226 or 132 or 136 of the Constitution to interfere with the award passed by the Labour Court etc., merely because there is a possibility of forming a different opinion on the entitlement of the employee/workman to get full back wages or the employer’s obligation to pay the same and that Courts must always be kept in view that in the cases of wrongful/illegal termination of service, the wrongdoer is the employer and sufferer is the employee/workman and there is no justification to give a premium to the employer of his wrongdoings by relieving him of the burden to pay to the employee/workman his dues in the form of full back wages. 46. 46. By relying upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Deepali Gundu Surwase, supra, the learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners were not engaged in any gainful employment either in any private or Government institutions during 30.08.2000 to 20.01.2011 and 12.03.2007 to 13.11.2018 respectively. 47. In Deepali Gundu Surwase, supra, the Hon’ble Supreme Court opined that the Courts must keep in mind that in matters of illegal/wrongful termination, an employee suffers on account of wrongdoings of the employer. By not awarding full back wages to the employee in such cases, it would amount to giving premium to the employer of his wrongdoings. 48. It is apposite to mention that there is no plea in the writ petitions that the petitioners were not engaged in any gainful employment during 30.8.2000 to 20.01.2011 and 12.3.2007 to 13.11.2018 respectively and for the first time during the course of arguments, the learned counsel for the petitioners argued that the petitioners were not gainfully employed during the said period. 49. Generally, an employee or workman whose services are terminated and who is desirous of getting back wages is required to plead in his petition that he was not gainfully employed or was employed on lesser wages. Without any pleading, the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners were not gainfully engaged during 30.08.2000 to 20.1.2011 and 12.3.2007 to 13.11.2018 respectively cannot be countenanced. 50. The law is settled that an employee has no right to claim back wages from his employer as of right only because the Court has set aside his dismissal order in his favour and directed his reinstatement in service. 51. Over the years, the law on grant of back wages has undergone a change. There has been a shift from grant of full back wages to partial back wages or no back wages at all. An employee has no automatic entitlement to back wages since it is discretionary and has to be dealt with in accordance with the facts and circumstances of each case. 52. In Novartis India Limited v. State of West Bengal, reported in (2009) 3 SCC 124 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that there is no automatic entitlement to full back wages on the finding that termination was not lawful. 53. 52. In Novartis India Limited v. State of West Bengal, reported in (2009) 3 SCC 124 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that there is no automatic entitlement to full back wages on the finding that termination was not lawful. 53. In P.V.K. Distillery Limited v. Mahendra Ram, reported in (2009) 5 SCC 705 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that even if the workmen have been illegally and unjustifiably terminated, the same does not create a right of reinstatement with full back wages. The Hon’ble Supreme Court is of the view that with the passage of time, a pragmatic view should be taken and the management should not be compelled to pay for the period for which the workman made no contribution at all. 54. In Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Coal India Limited and others v. Ananta Saha and others, reported in 2011-III-LLJ 165, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the issue of entitlement of back wages has been considered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court time and again and consistently held that even after punishment imposed upon the employee is quashed by the Court or Tribunal, the payment of back wages still remains discretionary. The power to grant back wages is to be exercised by the Court/Tribunal keeping in view the facts in their entirety as no straight-jacket formula can be evolved, nor a rule of universal application can be laid for such cases. Even if the delinquent is reinstated, it would not automatically make him entitled for back wages as entitlement to get back wages. 55. Where an employee is terminated or dismissed by way of a departmental enquiry on account of misconduct and the Court confirms the misconduct, but interferes with punishment for being disproportionate to the misconduct and awards a lesser punishment resulting in reinstatement of the employee, in such case, reinstatement itself is a consequential benefit arising from imposition of lesser punishment and hence, no back wages are necessarily be awarded in such a case. 56. Since period from 30.8.2000 to 20.1.2011 (W.P.(C) No.214 of 2020) and 12.3.2007 to 13.11.2018 (W.P.(C) No.215 of 2020) were regularized as non-qualifying service and treated as dies-non, the respondent authorities rightly come to the conclusion that the petitioners are not entitled for any pay and allowances for the said periods. 56. Since period from 30.8.2000 to 20.1.2011 (W.P.(C) No.214 of 2020) and 12.3.2007 to 13.11.2018 (W.P.(C) No.215 of 2020) were regularized as non-qualifying service and treated as dies-non, the respondent authorities rightly come to the conclusion that the petitioners are not entitled for any pay and allowances for the said periods. The question of considering back wages in the case of the petitioners has no merit and awarding of back wages in the factual scenario of the instant case will definitely give a wrong precedent, as in the case of the petitioners not only inquiry was held but also punishments were awarded to them for their misconducts i.e. leaving the lines STF Camp, Dak Bunglow and proceeded to station Charalie and Subji Mandi Market, Sibsagar without obtaining any permission from the competent authority by the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.214 of 2020 and deserted from the line without permission of competent authority at Chothegaon (Rear-27) by the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.215 of 2020. Since the misconducts done by the petitioners are indiscipline of force and are serious crime, which in a disciplined force are not eligible for forgiveness, the respondent authorities have rightly imposed punishments on them. Therefore, the claim of the petitioners that they should be granted pay and allowances for the period of suspension till the date of reporting duty has no substance and the same is liable to be rejected. 57. It is reiterated that in the case of the petitioners, they were dismissed from service on account of the misconducts and after the Courts intervention, they were reinstated into service and the departmental inquiry was ordered to be conducted after affording reasonable opportunity to them. Upon conducting disciplinary enquiry and based on the materials produced in the respective case of the petitioners, the disciplinary authority confirmed the misconducts and imposed punishment of stoppage of increments. In such a situation, the reinstatement of the petitioners itself is a consequential benefit and hence no back wages needs to be awarded to them. Since the misconducts of the petitioners were proved, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioners are not entitled to back wages and the respondent authorities have rightly denied the back wages, which warrants no interference. 58. For the foregoing discussions, this Court finds that there is no merit in both the writ petitions and the same are liable to be dismissed. 58. For the foregoing discussions, this Court finds that there is no merit in both the writ petitions and the same are liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, W.P.(C) Nos.214 and 215 of 2020 are dismissed. No costs. 59. Registry is directed to issue copy of this order to both the parties through their WhatsApp/e-mail.