JUDGMENT : N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR, J. 1. Heard Mr. D. Gogoi, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. G. Pegu, learned CGC appearing for the respondents. 2. The petitioner has instituted the present writ petition praying for the following reliefs: “(i) A Writ in the nature of mandamus shall not be issued directing the respondents to afford equal pay along with his batch-mate who were inducted in the force on 2007. (il) Writ in the nature of mandamus directing the authority to pay full amount of salary from the date of dismissal to the date of reinstatement. i.e. 09-07-2014 to till 02-07-2021. (iii) Writ in the nature mandamus shall not be issued directing the respondents to afford all the financial and service benefit including seniority and to further count his intervention period from i.e. 09-07-2014 to till 02-07-2021, as on duty while calculating his pension amount.” 3. The petitioner, herein, while serving as Constable (GD), Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF) at Sinkiview, Itanagar was arrested in connection with a criminal case on 20-02-2014. The petitioner having remained under detention for more than 48 hours, he was placed under suspension/ deemed suspension w.e.f. 20-02-2014. Thereafter, a departmental proceeding was instituted against the petitioner, herein, vide issuance of a memorandum dated 10-03-2014. The said departmental proceeding was continued and the enquiry report being submitted on 23-04-2014 by the Enquiry Officer, the Disciplinary Authority proceeded vide order dated 09-07-2014 to impose the penalty of dismissal from service upon the petitioner, herein. The appeal preferred by the petitioner in the matter against the order of dismissal from service also came to be rejected. Being aggrieved by the order of dismissal from service, the petitioner assailed the same before this Court by way of instituting a writ petition being W.P.(C) No. 3157/2016. A Coordinate Bench of this Court upon appreciating the materials coming on record in the said proceeding, proceeded vide order dated 25-03-2021 to interfere with the order of dismissal from service of the petitioner. Having interfered with the order of dismissal from service of the petitioner, a liberty was granted to the respondent to hold fresh enquiry against the petitioner in accordance with the provisions of CRPF Act and Rules. Having interfered with the order of dismissal from service of the petitioner, a liberty was granted to the respondent to hold fresh enquiry against the petitioner in accordance with the provisions of CRPF Act and Rules. It is seen that the respondent authorities in pursuance to passing of the said order dated 25-03-2021 by the Coordinate Bench of this Court, had on examination of the order decided not to prefer any appeal against the same and to comply with the directions passed in the matter. The petitioner accordingly was reinstated in his service. The respondent authorities after reinstatement of the petitioner had drawn up a proceeding against the petitioner on 09-07-2021 and on conclusion thereof the petitioner was imposed with a punishment to undergo 20 (twenty) days confinement to line in terms of the CRPF Act 1949 and Rules there-under. The petitioner noticed that on being reinstated in his service he was being authorized his pay and allowances at a lower stage than that authorized to his batch mates who were also inducted into the force along with him in the year 2007 and accordingly has instituted the present proceeding, praying for the reliefs noticed hereinabove. 4. Mr. D. Gogoi, learned counsel for the petitioner by reiterating the facts noticed, hereinabove, has submitted that the petitioner on being reinstated in his service, on interference being made by this Court with the order of dismissal from service, he was required to be released his pay and allowances for the period he had remained out of service on account of the imposition of the order of dismissal from service upon him. Mr. Gogoi has further submitted that the respondent authorities had not passed any order towards denying the petitioner his due pay and allowances for the period he was required to remain out of service on account of being imposed with the penalty of dismissal from service upon him. He submits that in view of the fact that the petitioner had to remain out of service only on account of imposition of penalty of dismissal from service, which was interfered with subsequently by this Court, the petitioner cannot be denied his back wages for the period of his such forced absence. 5. In the above premises, Mr. He submits that in view of the fact that the petitioner had to remain out of service only on account of imposition of penalty of dismissal from service, which was interfered with subsequently by this Court, the petitioner cannot be denied his back wages for the period of his such forced absence. 5. In the above premises, Mr. Gogoi submits that the respondent authorities be directed to release to the petitioner his due pay and allowances, for the period he was required to remain out of service on being imposed with the penalty of dismissal from service. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the pay and allowances required to be authorized to the petitioner, on his reinstatement in service, be fixed by reckoning the increments he is required to be authorized for the period of his forced absence on account of imposition of the penalty of dismissal from service. 6. Per contra, Mr. G. Pegu, learned CGC, appearing for the respondents has submitted that the petitioner, herein, having not served during the period, after imposition of the penalty of dismissal from service and this Court having interfered with the order of dismissal from service only on technical grounds, the petitioner, herein, would not be entitled to any back wages. He submits that the respondent authority having decided to accept the directions passed by this Court, no fresh departmental proceeding came to be instituted against the petitioner with regard to the allegations existing against him. Mr. Pegu has fairly submitted that no order was passed by the competent authority towards denying the petitioner his due pay and allowances for the period of absence on account of imposition of the penalty of dismissal from service and that no order has been issued towards holding the said period of forced absence to be not reckonable for the purpose of computing his other service benefits. 7. In the above premises, Mr. Pegu submits that the petitioner on resuming his services, his pay having been fixed in the manner required and back wages being denied to him by applying the principle of “No Work No Pay” no direction be issued by this Court authorizing back wages to the petitioner, herein. 8. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and has also perused the materials brought on record. 9. 8. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and has also perused the materials brought on record. 9. The petitioner, herein, on being imposed with the penalty of dismissal from service, had assailed the same before this Court by way of instituting a writ petition, being W.P.(C) No. 3157/2016. A Coordinate Bench on consideration of the issues arising in W.P.(C) No. 3157/2016 was pleased vide order dated 25-03-2021 to interfere with the penalty of dismissal from service as imposed upon the petitioner. 10. The Coordinate Bench in the order dated 25-03-2021, noticed the fact that in the criminal proceeding instituted against the petitioner, herein, his conviction by the learned Trial Court, was reversed by this Court in Crl. Appeal No. 06/2016 and the petitioner, herein, was acquitted of the charge framed against him. The Coordinate Bench also concluded that the departmental proceedings, instituted against the petitioner, being conducted in the jail premises a prejudice was caused to the petitioner, herein. Accordingly, applying the ratio of the decision of the Jammu & Kashmir High Court in the case of Laxman Dass Vs. UoI & Ors. , 2004 Legal Eagle (J&K) 34 proceeded to hold that the petitioner, herein, was not provided a fair trial in course of the departmental proceeding instituted against him. 11. The Coordinate Bench basing on the said conclusions and also appreciating the charges framed against the petitioner, proceeded to interfere with the order of dismissal imposed upon the petitioner. Consequently, the order of the Appellate Authority, dismissing the appeal preferred by the petitioner, herein, also came to be interfered with. However, liberty was granted to the respondent authorities to hold fresh enquiry against the petitioner, herein, within a period of 03 (three) months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. 12. The conclusions drawn by the Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 21-03-2021 being relevant, is extracted here-in-below: “15. It is also seen that this Court by judgment and order dated 17.02.2021, passed in the Crl.App.6/2016 had allowed the appeal and set aside the judgment and order dated 23.05.2016 passed by the learned Session Judge, (WSD), Yupia in Session Case POCSO No.30/YPAL/2014, which had arisen out of the FIR lodged against the petitioner and resultantly, the petitioner was acquitted from all charges. 16. 16. In view of the said position, the Court is inclined to accept the submission made by the learned counsel or the petitioner that the petitioner had suffered prejudice as the departmental proceeding was conducted in the jail premises. In view of the evidence on record and considering the acquittal of the petitioner in the trial, the Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner had not been given a fair opportunity of trial and to take a proper defence. The ratio laid down in the case of Laxman Dass (supra) is found to apply in the present case. Accordingly, it is held that the petitioner had not been provided fair trial in course of departmental proceeding as the petitioner was in jail when the inquiry was conducted. Therefore, under the facts of the present case, the petitioner is held to have not been able to properly defend himself of the charges framed against him. 17. In respect of charges for violation of Rule 3-B (ii) of CCS (Conduct)Rules, from the nature of evidence tendered by the witnesses examined, it does not reflect that any evidence was led as regards to the existing Government policy regarding prevention of crime and incident which was not followed or violated. In respect of the charges in respect of violation of Rule 3-C (1) of said Rules, it is seen that the said prohibition relates to sexual harassment of women at any work place. There is no evidence to the effect that the victim girl had suffered any sexual harassment at any work place. Therefore, in view of the discussions above, the impugned order of punishment bearing office order no.P.VIII-1/2014-138-EC-II dated 09.07.2014, thereby dismissing the petitioner from his service is set aside. As a sequel, the order dated 11.10.2014 passed by the Appellate Authority, i.e. Range HQ, DIGP, CRPF, Khatkhati (Assam) is also set aside. However, under the facts and circumstances as indicated above, the Court is inclined to grant the respondents the liberty to hold a fresh inquiry against the petitioner in accordance with the CRPF Act and the Rules framed there under. 18. In the event, the respondents choose to have a fresh departmental inquiry against the petitioner, the same shall be conducted within a period of3(three) months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the order.” 13. 18. In the event, the respondents choose to have a fresh departmental inquiry against the petitioner, the same shall be conducted within a period of3(three) months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the order.” 13. The respondent authorities had, thereafter, taken a decision not to further assail the order dated 25-03-2021 passed by the Coordinate Bench in W.P.(C) No. 3157/2016 before the higher forum and the petitioner, herein, was reinstated in his service. The petitioner resumed his services w.e.f. 02-07-2021. 14. The respondent authorities, on resumption of services by the petitioner, herein, proceeded to issue an order dated 09-07-2021, inter alia, providing therein that the period of absence of the petitioner during the currency of the penalty of dismissal i.e. the period w.e.f. 09-07-2014 till 02-07-2021, to stand regularized as spent on duty, but without back wages, applying the principle of “No Work No Pay”. The period of suspension undergone by the petitioner w.e.f. 20-02-2014 till 09-07-2014 was directed to be treated as such and the petitioner was held to be not entitled to any allowance other than the subsistence allowance paid to him. A fresh departmental proceeding was also directed to be instituted against the petitioner. However, subsequently, the competent authority proceeded to accord approval for closure of the matter. 15. The respondent authorities, thereafter, issued an order dated 05-04-2022 towards regulating the pay and allowances of the petitioner. A perusal of the order dated 05-04- 2022 reveals that the petitioner was held to be not entitled to any pay back wages for the period w.e.f. 09-07-2014 till 02-07-2021. Thereafter, the pay of the petitioner as on 01- 07-2021 was fixed at Rs. 34000/- by granting to him, notionally the annual increments w.e.f. 01-07-2015 onwards. The benefit of the revision of pay, coming into force w.e.f. 01- 01-2016 in terms of the recommendations of the Central Pay Commission was also extended to the petitioner. 16. The respondent authorities, thereafter, issued an addendum on 11-04-2022, informing that the Commandant, 138 Battalion had taken a decision to not hold a fresh inquiry in the matter against the petitioner. The petitioner was also authorized his annual increment w.e.f. 01-07-2022 increasing his pay from Rs. 34000/- to Rs. 35000/- w.e.f. 01-07-2022. 17. 16. The respondent authorities, thereafter, issued an addendum on 11-04-2022, informing that the Commandant, 138 Battalion had taken a decision to not hold a fresh inquiry in the matter against the petitioner. The petitioner was also authorized his annual increment w.e.f. 01-07-2022 increasing his pay from Rs. 34000/- to Rs. 35000/- w.e.f. 01-07-2022. 17. The above discussions reveals that the petitioner, herein, on his resumption of duties, was granted notional increments, also with the benefit of revision of pay coming into force and his pay was accordingly fixed as on 01-07-2021, but the petitioner was not paid his back wages for the period of his forced absence on account of being imposed with the penalty of dismissal from service, i.e. for the period w.e.f. 09-07-2014 to 02-07-2021. 18. The respondents have admitted that the period during which the petitioner was required to remain out of service on account of imposition of penalty of dismissal, was regularized as spent of duty for all purposes, i.e. qualifying service, leave, increment etc., however, without back wages on the principle of “No work no pay”. The above being the position, the petitioner in the facts and circumstances of the present case has been held to be on duty during the period the penalty of dismissal was in currency. The respondents having not proceeded in the matter by holding a de-novo inquiry against the petitioner, herein, the criminal case against the petitioner having resulted in his acquittal as noticed, hereinabove, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner is entitled to the back wages for the period he had remained out of service. In the present case, the respondent authorities have not taken a plea with regard to the fact that the petitioner during the period he had remained out of service on account of imposition of penalty of dismissal was gainfully employed. Accordingly, the petitioner cannot be deprived of his back wages for the period w.e.f. 09-07-2014 to 02-07-2021. 19. In view of the above, the respondents are directed to release to the petitioner his back wages for the period w.e.f. 09-07-2014 to 02-07-2021. Further, the petitioner is also entitled to the salaries for the period he had remained under suspension. Accordingly, the petitioner cannot be deprived of his back wages for the period w.e.f. 09-07-2014 to 02-07-2021. 19. In view of the above, the respondents are directed to release to the petitioner his back wages for the period w.e.f. 09-07-2014 to 02-07-2021. Further, the petitioner is also entitled to the salaries for the period he had remained under suspension. The respondent shall now compute the arrears of pay now required to be released to the petitioner within a period of 06 (six) months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order and release to the petitioner his arrear salaries. The arrear salaries being released, the respondent shall also compute the pay and allowance receivable by the petitioner on the date of his reinstatement, i.e. on 02-07-2021 and release to him arrears, if any, becoming available to him on account of re-fixation now directed to be carried out. 20. With the above observations and directions, the present writ petition stands disposed of.