Patna High Court
Meghnath Singh vs The Govt. Of Bihar And Ors on 24 April, 2026
Author: Anshuman
Bench: Anshuman
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.15016 of 2013
======================================================
Meghnath Singh S/O Late Ragho Singh R/O Village- Barka Lauhar, P.O-
Farna, P.S-Barahara, District- Bhojpur.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The Govt. Of Bihar
2. Director General Cum Inspector General of Police, Bihar, Patna.
3. Deputy Inspector General Of Police, Central Range, Patna.
4. Superintendent Of Police, Nalanda, Biharsharif.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sunil Kumar Singh, Adv.
For the Respondent/s : Mrs. Binita Singh, SC28
Mr. Kumar Kamal Nayan, AC to SC28
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DR. ANSHUMAN
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 24-04-2026
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and
learned counsel for the State.
2. The present writ application has been filed with
the following reliefs:-
(i) For quashing the part of the order
issued vide letter no. 115/ Vi. Ka. dated
30.10.2012
, corresponding district order No.
1574/2012 of Nalanda district Police Force by
which the pay and perks of the petitioner, for the
intervening period, from 27.11.2005 to 28.11.2012,
i.e. from the date of dismissal to the date of
reinstatement, was ordered to be forfeited, on the
principle basis of no work no pay. The petitioner
will not be entitled to draw the pay and allowances
for the aforesaid period, how ever the period shall
be adjusted towards extra-ordinary leave.
(ii) For issuing further appropriate
Patna High Court CWJC No.15016 of 2013 dt.24-04-2026
2/13
writ/order/ direction, commanding the respondents
to pay entire wages from the period, 27.11.2005 to
27.11.2012, with all consequential benefits,
including increment, promotion etc, during which
period the petitioner was out of service.
(iii) The court may adjudicate and
hold that when the petitioner was willing to work
and the respondents did no allow the petitioner to
work. In such circumstances whether the petitioner
is entitled for the wages of the said period in view
of the principle decided by the Hon’ble Supreme
Court and Hon’ble High Court.
(iv) This Court may further adjudicate
and hold that in view of the reinstatement of the
petitioner, the respondents are bound to pay salary
for the intervening period with all consequential
benefits.
(v) To award any other
relief/consequential reliefs to which the petitioner
is entitled in the facts and circumstances of the
case.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
the petitioner was appointed as a constable in Bihar Police and
he joined on 08.03.1977 in Ranchi DPF. He joined Chaibasa
DPF in the year 1986 on transfer. In the year 1992, he had
joined Nalanda DPF. Further in the year 1998, the petitioner was
posted to ST & SC P.S. at Biharsharif. He further submits that
on 15.02.2001, the petitioner was mobilized for election duty to
be held in Asthawan Assembly Constituency where the
petitioner along with other constables under the leadership of
the then Sub-Inspector of Police and Magistrate performed
Patna High Court CWJC No.15016 of 2013 dt.24-04-2026
3/13
election duty on 18.02.2001 and 19.02.2001. He further submits
that in the night of 19/20.01.2001 at about 1 AM, after
depositing the ballot boxes, the petitioner returned to police
lines at Biharsharif, where he was suffered from high fever, due
to fatigue and excess harassment. He further submits that on
20.02.2001, at the charge of absence from duty, the petitioner
was suspended from duty. He further submits that the petitioner
was taken to local doctors for treatment and suffered from
dementia. Thereafter, he was taken to Ranchi for treatment of
his mental derailment, where he remained under the treatment of
Dr. B.B. Singh, a Psychiatrist from 23.02.2001 to 18.08.2001
whose medical certificate is annexed vide Annexure-2 of the
writ petition. Thereafter, he was brought to his village home and
again fell ill and was taken to Ara for treatment from 22.08.2001
to 11.11.2001. He further submits after being declared medically
fit, the petitioner joined his duty at Biharsharif Police Lines on
11.11.2001 along with the medical reports for grant of 264 days
EL on medical grounds to the Superintendent of Police, Nalanda
for his absence from duty due to illness from 20.02.2001 to
10.11.2001.
4. Counsel further submits that the petitioner was
informed that the departmental proceeding No.19/2002 was
Patna High Court CWJC No.15016 of 2013 dt.24-04-2026
4/13
initiated against him and in utter violation of Police Manual
Rule 843, the departmental proceeding was initiated and he was
punished on the ground of unauthorized absence. He further
submits that the petitioner was further transferred to Banka
district and joined his new assignment in the year 2003.
Subsequently, the S.P. Banka has received a letter on 07.09.2005
in which petitioner was found guilty of the charges and final
show-cause has been called for. He further submits that vide
letter No.4957/R.O. dated 27.11.2005 issued by S.P., Nalanda,
vide D.O. No.2534/2005 of Nalanda DPF by which the
petitioner was dismissed from the service.
5. Counsel further submits that the petitioner has
preferred appeal on 17.12.2005 before the D.I.G., Central
Range, Patna against the order of dismissal, but no decision has
been taken by the appellate authority. Thereafter, the petitioner
has preferred writ application before this Hon’ble Court in
CWJC No.4690 of 2006. The said writ petition was finally
decided by this Hon’ble Court on 16.07.2012 with direction to
the respondents to dispose off the appeal within 3 months. He
further submits that his appeal was remained pending for almost
7 years and finally, D.I.G., Central Range, Patna has taken on
his appeal vide letter No.115/VI. Ka dated 30.10.2012
Patna High Court CWJC No.15016 of 2013 dt.24-04-2026
5/13
(impugned order which he has challenged in part), petitioner
was reinstated in service with two black marks for unauthorized
absence of 264 days from duty. He was also ordered that for the
intervening period, from the date of dismissal from service to
date of reinstatement he was out of job, he will not get any
salary for the intervening period and the said period will be
treated as “No Work No Pay”.
6. Counsel further submits that the petitioner
joined his duty on 28.11.2012, but he was not paid pay and
perks for the intervening period and thereafter, he filed the
present writ petition in the year 2013 with prayer that the period
from 27.11.2005 to 27.11.2012 during which he was not on
duty, may be treated as in continuation of his service and the
principles of no work no pay be ignored by way of amending
the order vide letter No.115/Vi.ka. Dated 30.10.2012.
7. In support of his argument, counsel for the
petitioner relied on the judgment passed by Hon’ble Supreme
Court of India in case of Union of India Etc. Vs. K.V.
Jankiraman reported in 1991 AIR 2010 and submits that the
normal rule of no work and no pay is not applicable in the case
of the petitioner particularly when, the petitioner is willing to
work and he was kept away from the work by the authorities for
Patna High Court CWJC No.15016 of 2013 dt.24-04-2026
6/13
no fault of the petitioner, and hence, the writ petition may be
allowed.
8. Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand,
submits that the petitioner is not entitled for any relief due to the
reason that the appellate authority has taken a decision that from
the prescription of the doctor and the receipts of purchased
medicine, it becomes crystal clear that he was treated himself
through different doctors, but not taken leave according to the
service law and removal from the service, has been treated as
exorbitant punishment and therefore, dismissal order from
service has been set aside and only he has been held guilty to be
on leave without any information, permission and leave from his
duty. The punishment of two black marks has been granted to
the petitioner. The absence period has been treated as extra leave
and during the period, he has not worked, be treated as no work
no pay.
9. Learned counsel further submits that the stand
taken by the appellate authority is completely in accordance
with law and a sympathetical attitude has been adopted by them
and there is no need of any interference in the said decision.
10. In response thereof, counsel for the petitioner
has taken another plea that Rule 12 of the Bihar Government
Patna High Court CWJC No.15016 of 2013 dt.24-04-2026
7/13
Servants (CCA) Rules, 2005 is in his favour which indicates
that the treatment of service on reinstatement and admissibility
of pay and allowance after dismissal, removal or compulsory
retirement as a result of appeal. He further submits that
particularly, Rule 12(2) of the Bihar CCA Rules, 2005 is in his
favour and therefore, in the light of the said rule and the case of
Union of India Vs. K.V. Jankiraman (supra), the present writ
petition may be decided in his favour.
11. After hearing the parties and upon perusal of
the documents, it is necessary to quote Rule 12(2) of the Bihar
CCA Rules, 2005, states as follows:-
12. Treatment of service on
reinstatement and admissibility of pay and
allowances after dismissal, removal or
compulsory retirement as a result of appeal.-(2)
The Government Servant shall, subject to the
provisions of sub-rule (6) be paid the full pay and
allowances 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, in cases-
(i) where the disciplinary authority is
of opinion that the Government Servant who had
been dismissed, removed or compulsorily retired
has been fully exonerated, or
Patna High Court CWJC No.15016 of 2013 dt.24-04-2026
8/13
(ii) where the order of dismissal,
removal or compulsory retirement from service is
set aside by the appellate authority solely on the
ground of noncompliance of the requirement of
these Rules and no further inquiry is proposed to
be held :
12. Upon bare reading of the Rule 12(2) of the
CCA, Rules, 2005, it transpires to this Court that the said Rule
12(2) is dependable upon Rule 12(4) and Rule 12(6) of the
Bihar CCA Rules, 2005 which states as follows:-
12(4). In cases other than those
covered by sub-rule (2) of this Rule the
Government Servant shall, subject to the provisions
of sub-rule (6) and (7), be paid such proportion of
the full pay and allowances 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, as the disciplinary
authority may determine. The disciplinary
authority shall determine the proportion of such
payment after giving notice to the Government
Servant of the quantum proposed and after
considering the representation, if any, submitted by
him, in that connection within sixty days from the
date on which the notice aforesaid is served on the
Government Servant.
12(6). The payment of allowances
Patna High Court CWJC No.15016 of 2013 dt.24-04-2026
9/13under sub-rule (2) or sub-rule (4) shall be subject
to all other conditions under which allowances are
admissible.
13. Further paragraph 3 of the judgment of Union
of India Vs. K.V. Jankiraman (supra), which is extract of
Indian Kanoon -http://indiankanoon.org/doc/1142043/ is quoted
below:-
“3. The normal rule of “no work no
pay” is not applicable to cases where the employee
although he is willing to work is kept away from
work by the authorities for no fault of his. This is
not a case where the employee remains away from
work for his own reasons, although the work is
offered to him. It is for this reason that F.R. 17(1).
will also be inapplicable to such cases.”
And further upon perusal of the order of the
appellate authority which is impugned (annexure-P/1), the
operative part, which the petitioner wants to remove, is stated
below:-
“सं चचका के अवलोकन से यह भी पाया
गया चक आरोचपत ने पु चलस अधीकक, नालं दा के
जापांक-4957/र 0 का0 चदनांक-27.11.05 दारा से वा से
मु चकत के चवरद चदनांक-17.12.05 को पु चलस अधीकक,
नालं दा के माधयम से अपील अभयावे दन चदया है चजसकी
vfxze izfr अधोहसताकरी के कायारलय मे चदनांक-
17.12.05 को izkIr है । इस कायारलय का जापांक-
941/सा०शा० चदनांक-08.06.06 दारा नालं दा चजला
चवभागीय कायरवाही सं 0-19/02 चवरद चसपाही/824
मे घनाथ चसं ह के चवरद अपील अभयावे दन पर
Patna High Court CWJC No.15016 of 2013 dt.24-04-2026
10/13कंचडकावार चटपपणी izsf’kr करने हे तु पु चलस अधीकक,
नालं दा को चनदर श चदया गया है चजसके आलोक मे उनके
जापांक-3157/र 0 का0 चदनांक-22.06.06 दारा समचपरत
izfrosnu मे उलले ख चकया गया है चक उकत बखारसत
चसपाही के चवरद कोई अपील अभयावे दन उनके
कायारलय मे izkIr नहीं है । जबचक आरोचपत दारा पु चलस
अधीकक, नालं दा के कायारलय मे चदये गये अपील
अभयावे दन चदनांक-25.12.05 को उनके कायारलय मे izkIr
होने की izfof’V से सं बंचधत अपील अभयावे दन सं चचका मे
उपलबध है ।
सं चचका के अवलोकन से यह भी पाया गया
चक आरोचपत चु नाव समाचपत तथा मत पे चटका जमा करने
बाद बीमार पडे और अनु पचसथत हो गये । इनके दारा
समचपरत चचचकतसक ds fizfLdzI”ku एवं दबा खरीदने के
रशीद से पु चषट होती है चक इनके दारा ईलाज कराया गया
है ले चकन इनके दारा चनयमतः छुट् टी izkIr नहीं की गई ।
buds चवरद लगाये गये आरोप और सं चालन के उपरांत
आये तथयो के चवशले षण से पाया गया चक इनके रोषा से
चपछडते के अनु रप से वा से मु चकत हे तु दी गई सजा बडा
दणड है ।
अतः सं चचका मे उपलबध आरोप, izn”kZ,
सं चालन की कायरवाही, साचकयो का बयान, सं चालन
पदाचधकारी का मं तवय, पु चलस अधीकक, नालं दा दारा
पाचरत आदे श एवं आरोचपत के अपील अभयावे दन के
चवशले षण से पु चलस अधीकक, नालं दा के कायारलय का
आदे श जापांक-4957/र 0 का0, चदनांक-27.11.05
तदनु सार नालं दा चजलादे श सं ०-25/05 दारा चनगरत
आरोचपत के बखारसतगी की दी गई कठोर सजा के आदे श
को चनरसत करते हुए आरोचपत चसपाही/824 मे घनाथ
चसं ह को से वा मे वापस चलया जाता है । इनके बखारसतगी
की अवचध को से वा मे टूट नहीं माना जाये गा परनतु
इनके अनाचधकृत रप से चबना चकसी सूचना, अनु मचत
एवं अवकाश के कतरवय से अनु पचसथत रहने के चलए
दोषी पाते हुए “दो कालांक” की सजा दी जाती है एवं
अनु पचसथचत अवचध कुल-264 चदनो का वे तन जपत करते
हुए बखारसतगी की चतचथ चदनांक-27.11.05 से काम नही
तो वे तन नही, के चसदानत के आधार पर वे तन दे य नहीं
होगा तथा उकत अवचध को असाधारण अवकाश मे
Patna High Court CWJC No.15016 of 2013 dt.24-04-2026
11/13सामं चजत करने का आदे श चदया जाता है ।”
14. The Rule 12(2) of the Bihar CCA Rules, 2005,
is dependable upon 12(6) which states that the payment of
allowances under Rule 12(2) & 12(4) shall be subject to all
other condition under which the allowances are admissible.
15. Here in the present case, the petitioner is
demanding the entire wages and the consequential benefits for
the period between 27.11.2005 to 27.11.2012. During this
period, he claimed that his appeal was pending and no decision
was taken and decision has been delayed only due to pendency
of the appeal about which he had already moved before this
Hon’ble Court in CWJC No.4690 of 2006, which was decided
on 16.07.2012 and after passing order on the same, the final
decision has been taken by the authority in appeal.
16. It transpires to this Court that on the date of
final order i.e., on 16.07.2012, it was well within mind of the
petitioner that his writ petition was pending before the authority
concerned since 2005 onwards, but he has not made any such
prayer in the earlier writ petition which he ought to be made and
since he has not made any such prayer in the earlier writ
petition, therefore, this Court had not granted any such relief,
which he wants to be granted in the present writ petition.
17. This Court is also of the view that the decision
Patna High Court CWJC No.15016 of 2013 dt.24-04-2026
12/13
of Union of India Vs. K.V. Jankiraman (supra) talks about the
situation that the normal rule of no work no pay is not
applicable to the cases where the employee although he is
willing to work is kept away from work by the authorities for
not fault of his. But the present situation is not here, the
petitioner was kept away from the work from the authority only
due to the reason that during the said period, he was dismissed
from the service and his appeal was pending and neither
petitioner knows that his appeal was going to be allowed nor the
appellate authority before whom it was pending, is aware that,
his appeal was going to be allowed. Therefore, the condition of
Union of India Vs. K.V. Jankiraman (supra) in view of the
Court does not make any favour in the case of the petitioner. It
is also not a case where employee remained away from his work
for his own reason although work is offered to him. Here in the
present case, work could not be offered to him as he was a
dismissed employee. The Appellate Authority at the time of
consideration of the appeal, has taken care of the files and the
documents available before him and in the opinion of this Court,
he has rightly decided that the petitioner was taking treatment
under the different doctors in the different town. He was
purchasing the medicine in the different towns, but he has not
Patna High Court CWJC No.15016 of 2013 dt.24-04-2026
13/13
opted to take leave or any information to the authority
concerned and in result, he was removed from his service. But
sympathetically, due to his unauthorized absence, the dismissal
order was set aside only treating him on the principle of no work
no pay. As such, in the light of the aforesaid reasons, this Court
is not inclined to interfere in the order passed by the appellate
authority and this writ application is hereby dismissed.
18. With the aforesaid observations and directions,
the present writ application stands dismissed.
(Dr. Anshuman, J)
Prakashmani/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE N/A Uploading Date Transmission Date N/A
