Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Papendra Singh vs Commissioner Of Police on 11 February, 2026
1 OA No.4566/2024
Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench, New Delhi
OA No.4566/2024
Order reserved on: 20.01.2026
Order pronounced on: 11.02.2026
Hon'ble Dr. Chhabilendra Roul, Member (A)
Hon'ble Sh. Rajveer Singh Verma, Member (J)
Papendra Singh
S/o Shri Rohitashwa Singh
R/o Mahala ki Dhani,
Titanwar Udaipurwati,
Jhunjhunu, Rajasthan, Pincode-333012.
....Applicant
(By Advocate: Ms. Rhea Verma with Ms. Kavita Chaturvedi)
Versus
1. Commissioner of Police,
Delhi Police Hdqrs. (New Building),
Behind Parliament Street Police Station,
New Delhi-110001.
2. Joint Director,
Delhi Police Academy,
Jharoda Kalan,
New Delhi-110072.
... Respondents
(By Advocate: Mr. Sona Kumar)
ORDER
By Dr. Chhabilendra Roul, Member (A) Present Original Application has been filed by the applicant under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking the following relief: Digitally signed by Sunita Dutt
Sunita DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=8895, OID.2.5.4.65= 1f757d2a40f14493a01379dd12b26c68, Phone= f725f69527d0bd5de6796dc2b9018c93ad3f1f51 d1ed688256e5ff8c529bbda4, PostalCode= 110089, S=Delhi, SERIALNUMBER= 2bdd79be8aca23c53c876d55428617a4c8cc90c Dutt cfe14b22f74ffb78936ff8f7b, CN=Sunita Dutt Reason: your signing reason here Location: your signing location here Date: 2026.02.16 16:59:16+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2023.2.0 2 OA No.4566/2024 "(i) Direct the Respondents to set aside and quash order dated 23.08.2024 to the extent it has denied the Applicant backwages and arrears from 07.07.2022 to date of reinstatement, i.e. 04.07.2024; and award all consequential benefits, including continuity of service, seniority, arrears of pay, fixation of pay at par with other similarly placed, to the Applicant; and
(ii) Any other or further order as this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit."
2. Factual Matrix 2.1 The brief facts of the case are that the applicant was employed with the respondents as Constable (Exe.) (Male) in Delhi Police. He joined the basic training at Delhi Police Academy, Jharoda Kalan, New Delhi provisionally on 14.03.2022. While the respondents undertook the verification of the his character and antecedents, they found that one FIR No. 591/2018 dated 15.10.2018 u/s 3 & 6 of Rajasthan Property Defacement Act, 2006 was filed against him. The Court of ACMN No. 2, Jaipur gave him the benefit under Section 3 of the P.O. Act and imposed a fine of Rs.500/-. The respondents from the scrutiny of records found that the applicant has concealed the pendency of aforementioned FIR against him and accordingly, vide order dated 27.07.2023 terminated him from the service. Aggrieved, the applicant filed OA No. 1815/2023 before this Tribunal and this Tribunal vide order dated 23.05.2023 allowed the OA and directed the respondents to reinstate the applicant in service along with all consequential benefits. The Digitally signed by Sunita Dutt Sunita DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=8895, OID.2.5.4.65= 1f757d2a40f14493a01379dd12b26c68, Phone= f725f69527d0bd5de6796dc2b9018c93ad3f1f51 d1ed688256e5ff8c529bbda4, PostalCode= 110089, S=Delhi, SERIALNUMBER= 2bdd79be8aca23c53c876d55428617a4c8cc90c Dutt cfe14b22f74ffb78936ff8f7b, CN=Sunita Dutt Reason: your signing reason here Location: your signing location here Date: 2026.02.16 16:59:16+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2023.2.0 3 OA No.4566/2024 respondents challenged the said order before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in W.P.(C) No. 9894/2023 and the High Court of Delhi vide order dated 13.05.2023 dismissed the said Writ Petition. In compliance of the High Court decision, the respondents vide order dated 23.08.2024 passed the following order:
"In pursuance of the judgment dated 13.05.2024 passed by the Bench of Hon'ble Ms. Justice Rekha Palli and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Saurabh Banerjee, Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in W.P. (C) 9894/2023 & CM APPL. 38069/2023 - titled C.P., Delhi & Anr. Vs. Papendra Singh as well as opinion of LA to CP, Delhi the intervening period from 07.07.2022 (from date of termination) to the date of re- Instate i.e. 04.07.2024 is hereby decided as spent on duty for all intents and purposes but without back wages and arrears. However, he will be granted notional increment for the period as mentioned above during which he has not performed his duty as R/Ct. (Exe.). During this period, he will not be entitled to draw any arrears of pay and allowance as per FR-17 (1), which speaks that an officer shall begin to draw pay and allowances attached to his tenure of a post with effect from the date when he assumes the duties of that post, and shall cease to draw them as soon as he cease to discharge those duties."
However, this period will, otherwise, count towards fixation of his seniority."
2.2 The respondents allowed the applicant to rejoin the service. Accordingly, the applicant rejoined the service on 04.07.2024. As the respondents did not give appropriate wages and arrears of pay, the applicant filed the present OA seeking aforementioned reliefs.
3. Notices were issued to the respondents and they have filed their counter reply, to which the applicant has also filed his rejoinder.
Digitally signed by Sunita Dutt Sunita DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=8895, OID.2.5.4.65= 1f757d2a40f14493a01379dd12b26c68, Phone= f725f69527d0bd5de6796dc2b9018c93ad3f1f51 d1ed688256e5ff8c529bbda4, PostalCode= 110089, S=Delhi, SERIALNUMBER= 2bdd79be8aca23c53c876d55428617a4c8cc90c Dutt cfe14b22f74ffb78936ff8f7b, CN=Sunita Dutt Reason: your signing reason here Location: your signing location here Date: 2026.02.16 16:59:16+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2023.2.0 4 OA No.4566/2024
4. Submissions by Learned Counsel for the Applicant 4.1 Learned counsel for applicant submits that as the Tribunal ordered to reinstate the applicant along with all consequential benefits, the respondents should have given backwages as well as seniority and arrears of pay to the applicant for the period from 07.07.2022 till date of reinstatement i.e. 04.07.2024. However, the respondents vide order dated 23.08.2024 have denied the said benefits. The applicant is entitled to get all the backwages and arrears of pay as per the principle which has been enunciated in catena of judgments by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and by this Tribunal.
4.2 In support of her averments, learned counsel for applicant draws attention to the judgment dated 12.08.2013 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Deepali Gundu Surwase Vs. Kranti Junior Adhyapak Mahavidyalaya (D.Ed.) and Ors., Civil Appeal No. 6767/2013. Particularly she refers to paragraphs 17 and 33 of the said judgment which are read as under:
"17. The very idea of restoring an employee to the position which he held before dismissal or removal or termination of service implies that the employee will be put in the same position in which he would have been but for the illegal action taken by the employer The injury suffered by a person, who is dismissed or removed or is otherwise terminated from service cannot easily be measured in terms of money. With the passing of an Digitally signed by Sunita Dutt Sunita DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=8895, OID.2.5.4.65= 1f757d2a40f14493a01379dd12b26c68, Phone= f725f69527d0bd5de6796dc2b9018c93ad3f1f51 d1ed688256e5ff8c529bbda4, PostalCode= 110089, S=Delhi, SERIALNUMBER= 2bdd79be8aca23c53c876d55428617a4c8cc90c Dutt cfe14b22f74ffb78936ff8f7b, CN=Sunita Dutt Reason: your signing reason here Location: your signing location here Date: 2026.02.16 16:59:16+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2023.2.0 5 OA No.4566/2024 order which has the effect of severing the employer employee relationship, the latter's source of income gets dried up. Not only the concerned employee, but his entire family suffers grave adversities. They are deprived of the source of sustenance. The children are deprived of nutritious food and all opportunities of education and advancement in life. At times, the family has to borrow from the relatives and other acquaintance to avoid starvation. These sufferings continue till the competent adjudicatory forum decides on the legality of the action taken by the employer. The reinstatement of such an employee, which is preceded by find finding of the competent judicial/quasi judicial body or Court that the action taken by the employer is ultra vires the relevant statutory provisions or the principles of natural justice, entitles the employee to claim full back wages. If the employer wants to deny back wages to the employee or contest his entitlement to get consequential benefits, then it is for him/her to specifically plead and prove that during the intervening period the employee was gainfully employed and was getting the same emoluments. Denial of back wages to an employee, who has suffered due to an illegal act of the employer would amount to indirectly punishing the concerned employee and rewarding the employer by relieving him of the obligation to pay back wages including the emoluments.
XXXXXXXXXXX
33. The propositions which can be culled out from the aforementioned judgments are:
i) In cases of wrongful termination of service, reinstatement with continuity of service and back wages is the normal rule.
ii) The aforesaid rule is subject to the rider that while deciding the issue of back wages, the adjudicating authority or the Court may take into consideration the length of service of the employee/workman, the nature of misconduct, if any, found proved against the employee/workman, the financial condition of the employer and similar other factors.
iii) Ordinarily, an employee or workman whose services are terminated and who is desirous of getting back wages is required to either plead or at least make a statement before the adjudicating authority or the Court of first instance that he/she was not gainfully employed or was employed on lesser wages. If the employer wants to avoid payment of full back wages, then it has to plead and also lead cogent evidence to prove that the employee/workman was gainfully employed and was getting wages equal to the wages he/she was drawing prior to the termination of service. This is so because it is Digitally signed by Sunita Dutt Sunita DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=8895, OID.2.5.4.65= 1f757d2a40f14493a01379dd12b26c68, Phone= f725f69527d0bd5de6796dc2b9018c93ad3f1f51 d1ed688256e5ff8c529bbda4, PostalCode= 110089, S=Delhi, SERIALNUMBER= 2bdd79be8aca23c53c876d55428617a4c8cc90c Dutt cfe14b22f74ffb78936ff8f7b, CN=Sunita Dutt Reason: your signing reason here Location: your signing location here Date: 2026.02.16 16:59:16+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2023.2.0 6 OA No.4566/2024 settled law that the burden of proof of the existence of a particular fact lies on the person who makes a positive averments about its existence. It is always easier to prove a positive fact than to prove a negative fact. Therefore, once the employee shows that he was not employed, the onus lies on the employer to specifically plead and prove that the employee was gainfully employed and was getting the same or substantially similar emoluments.
iv) The cases in which the Labour Court/Industrial Tribunal exercises power under Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and finds that even though the enquiry held against the employee/workman is consistent with the rules of natural justice and / or certified standing orders, if any, but holds that the punishment was disproportionate to the misconduct found proved, then it will have the discretion not to award full back wages. However, if the Labour Court/Industrial Tribunal finds that the employee or workman is not at all guilty of any misconduct or that the employer had foisted a false charge, then there will be ample justification for award of full back wages.
v) 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 concerned Court or Tribunal will be fully justified in directing payment of full back wages. In such cases, the superior Courts should not exercise power under Article 226 or 136 of the Constitution and 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. The 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 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.
vi) In a number of cases, the superior Courts have interfered with the award of the primary adjudicatory authority on the premise that finalization of litigation has taken long time ignoring that in majority of cases the parties are not responsible for such delays. Lack of infrastructure and manpower is the principal cause for delay in the disposal of cases. For this the litigants cannot be blamed or penalised. It would amount to grave injustice to an employee or workman if he is denied back wages simply because there is long lapse of time between the termination of his service and finality given to the order of reinstatement. The Courts should bear in mind that in most of these cases, the employer is in an advantageous position vis-à-vis the employee or Digitally signed by Sunita Dutt Sunita DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=8895, OID.2.5.4.65= 1f757d2a40f14493a01379dd12b26c68, Phone= f725f69527d0bd5de6796dc2b9018c93ad3f1f51 d1ed688256e5ff8c529bbda4, PostalCode= 110089, S=Delhi, SERIALNUMBER= 2bdd79be8aca23c53c876d55428617a4c8cc90c Dutt cfe14b22f74ffb78936ff8f7b, CN=Sunita Dutt Reason: your signing reason here Location: your signing location here Date: 2026.02.16 16:59:16+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2023.2.0 7 OA No.4566/2024 workman. He can avail the services of best legal brain for prolonging the agony of the sufferer, i.e., the employee or workman, who can ill afford the luxury of spending money on a lawyer with certain amount of fame.
Therefore, in such cases it would be prudent to adopt the course suggested in Hindustan Tin Works Private Limited v. Employees of Hindustan Tin Works Private Limited (supra).
vii) The observation made in J.K. Synthetics Ltd. v. K.P. Agrawal (supra) that on reinstatement the employee/workman cannot claim continuity of service as of right is contrary to the ratio of the judgments of three Judge Benches referred to hereinabove and cannot be treated as good law. This part of the judgment is also against the very concept of reinstatement of an employee/workman."
4.3 Referring to reasons given by the respondents while denying the benefit sought by the applicant invoking FR 17(1), the learned counsel for applicant refers to the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case titled Ajay Singh vs. Delhi Public School and anr., W.P.(C) 5022/2019 dated 06.04.2023 wherein, in para 8 the Hon'ble Delhi High Court referred to judgment of Apex Court in Union of India and Others vs. K.V.Jankiraman and Others, (1991) 4 SCC 109. Learned counsel, in particular, relied on the observation made in paras 25 & 26 of the judgment of K.V.Jankiraman (supra) which are reproduced below:
"25. We are not much impressed by the contentions advanced on behalf of the authorities. The normal rule of "no work no pay" is not applicable to cases such as the present one 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.Digitally signed by Sunita Dutt
Sunita DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=8895, OID.2.5.4.65= 1f757d2a40f14493a01379dd12b26c68, Phone= f725f69527d0bd5de6796dc2b9018c93ad3f1f51 d1ed688256e5ff8c529bbda4, PostalCode= 110089, S=Delhi, SERIALNUMBER= 2bdd79be8aca23c53c876d55428617a4c8cc90c Dutt cfe14b22f74ffb78936ff8f7b, CN=Sunita Dutt Reason: your signing reason here Location: your signing location here Date: 2026.02.16 16:59:16+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2023.2.0 8 OA No.4566/2024
26. We are, therefore, broadly in agreement with the finding of the Tribunal that when an employee is completely exonerated meaning thereby that he is not found blameworthy in the least and is not visited with the penalty even of censure, he has to be given the benefit of the salary of the higher post along with the other benefits from the date on which he would have normally been promoted but for the disciplinary/criminal proceedings. However, there may be cases where the proceedings, whether disciplinary or criminal, are, for example, delayed at the instance of the employee or the clearance in the disciplinary proceedings or acquittal in the criminal proceedings is withbenefit of doubt or on account of non- availability of evidence due to the acts attributable to the employee etc. In such circumstances, the concerned authorities must be vested with the power to decide whether the employee at all deserves any salary for the intervening period and if he does, the extent to which he deserves it. Life being complex, it is not possible to anticipate and enumerate exhaustively all the circumstances under which such consideration may become necessary To ignore, however, such circumstances when they exist and lay down an inflexible rule that in every case when an employee is exonerated in disciplinary/criminal proceedings he should be entitled to all salary for the intervening period is to undermine discipline in the administration and jeopardise public interests. We are, therefore, unable to agree with the Tribunal that to deny the salary to an employee would in all circumstances be illegal While therefore, we do not approve of the said last sentence in the first sub- paragraph after clause (iii) of paragraph 3 of the said Memorandum viz. but no arrears of pay shall be payable to him for the period of notional promotion preceding the date of actual promotion", we direct that in place of the said sentence the following sentences be read in the Memorandum:
"However, whether the officer concerned will be entitled to any arrears of pay for the period of notional promotion preceding the date of actual promotion, and if so to what extent, will be decided by the concerned authority by taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances of the disciplinary proceeding/criminal prosecution. Where the authority denies arrears of salary or part of it, it will record its reasons for doing"
4.4 Learned counsel for the applicant also refers to orders of this Tribunal in OA No. 2245/2022 decided on 21.03.2023, OA No. 2120/2022 decided on 09.09.2024, OA No. 1767/2022 decided on 09.09.2024. In all these OAs, this Digitally signed by Sunita Dutt Sunita DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=8895, OID.2.5.4.65= 1f757d2a40f14493a01379dd12b26c68, Phone= f725f69527d0bd5de6796dc2b9018c93ad3f1f51 d1ed688256e5ff8c529bbda4, PostalCode= 110089, S=Delhi, SERIALNUMBER= 2bdd79be8aca23c53c876d55428617a4c8cc90c Dutt cfe14b22f74ffb78936ff8f7b, CN=Sunita Dutt Reason: your signing reason here Location: your signing location here Date: 2026.02.16 16:59:16+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2023.2.0 9 OA No.4566/2024 Tribunal has allowed the payment of backwages to the applicants therein where the applicants were reinstated in service for various reasons.
5. Submission by Learned Counsel for the respondents 5.1 Per contra, learned counsel for respondents refers to FR 17(1) which is reproduced as under:
"FR 17(1):
Subject to any exceptions specifically made in these rules and to the provisions of sub-rule (2), a Government servant shall begin to draw the pay and allowances attached to his tenure of a post with effect from the date when he assumes the duties of that post and shall cease to draw them as soon as he ceases to discharge those duties.
Provisos / Clauses:
(a) A Government servant who is absent from duty without authority shall not be entitled to any pay and allowances during the period of such absence.
(b) Where a Government servant is prevented from discharging his duties for reasons beyond his control, the competent authority may grant such pay and allowances for such period as it may consider just and equitable."
5.2 In addition, the learned counsel for respondents submits that the applicant did not work with the respondents for the period 07.07.2022 till date of reinstatement i.e. 04.07.2024. He further draws attention of the Tribunal to Rule 5 of CCS (Temporary Service) Rules 1965. Accordingly, the respondents have taken action of terminating his service because of false declaration regarding pendency of FIR. The applicant was terminated, applying the ratio of aforementioned rules and Digitally signed by Sunita Dutt Sunita DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=8895, OID.2.5.4.65= 1f757d2a40f14493a01379dd12b26c68, Phone= f725f69527d0bd5de6796dc2b9018c93ad3f1f51 d1ed688256e5ff8c529bbda4, PostalCode= 110089, S=Delhi, SERIALNUMBER= 2bdd79be8aca23c53c876d55428617a4c8cc90c Dutt cfe14b22f74ffb78936ff8f7b, CN=Sunita Dutt Reason: your signing reason here Location: your signing location here Date: 2026.02.16 16:59:16+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2023.2.0 10 OA No.4566/2024 the orders/judgments cited by the learned counsel for applicant are distinguished as those are in case of regular employees. In view of this, the action taken by the respondents is justified.
6. Rejoinder submission by learned counsel for the applicant 6.1 In rejoinder, learned counsel for applicant submits that Rule 5 of CCS (Temporary Service) Rules 1965 does not say about the entitlement of an employee who has been reinstated after being declared innocent in Criminal Court or after clearance in disciplinary cases.
7. Analysis 7.1 FIR No. 591 of 2018 under Section 3/6 of Rajasthan Property Defacement Act, 2006 was lodged against the applicant on 15.10.2018. The challan was prepared and a fine of Rs.500/- was imposed on him in the said case by the competent court. The respondents found on verification that the applicant had given false information in the attestation forms. To the question "Have you ever been fined by a court of law? "The applicant answered "No". To the question "Whether any FIR was ever registered against you in any police station?" again the applicant wrote "No". The respondents, after finding the above information, terminated the services of the applicant as per proviso to sub-Rule (I) of Rule 5 of CCS Digitally signed by Sunita Dutt Sunita DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=8895, OID.2.5.4.65= 1f757d2a40f14493a01379dd12b26c68, Phone= f725f69527d0bd5de6796dc2b9018c93ad3f1f51 d1ed688256e5ff8c529bbda4, PostalCode= 110089, S=Delhi, SERIALNUMBER= 2bdd79be8aca23c53c876d55428617a4c8cc90c Dutt cfe14b22f74ffb78936ff8f7b, CN=Sunita Dutt Reason: your signing reason here Location: your signing location here Date: 2026.02.16 16:59:16+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2023.2.0 11 OA No.4566/2024 (Temporary Services) Rules, 1965. The applicant filed OA No.1815/2022 and this Tribunal passed the following order on 23.05.2023:
"17. In the facts and circumstances, the respondents should have considered and examined whether applicant is suitable and fit for appointment in view of his involvement in 25 OA No.1815/2022 criminal case, where he was fined for an amount of Rs.500/-. The inquiry as to the nature of involvement was required to be fairly conducted and the applicant should not have been automatically held unsuitable for appointment merely on the ground of concealment. The competent authority appears to have failed to consider and give due weight to the trivial nature of offence and was merely swept by the factum of non-disclosure or concealment of involvement in criminal case by the petitioner.......
xxx xxx xxx
19. In the result, for the foregoing reasons, the impugned order dated 07.07.2022 passed by the respondents, terminating the services of the applicant, is quashed and set aside. The applicant shall be reinstated in service. He shall be entitled to all consequential benefits in accordance with the relevant rules and instructions on the subject. This exercise shall be completed by the respondents within a 27 OA No.1815/2022 period of 08 weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order."
7.2 The respondents complied with the said order after the dismissal of the WPC No.9894/2023 vide judgment dated 13.05.2024. The respondents reinstated the applicant in service and treated the intervening period from 07.07.2022 (the date of termination) till 04.07.2024 (the date of reinstatement in service) as period spent on duty for all intent and purposes without back wages applying FR 17(1). However, the respondents have granted him notional pay fixation, increment for treating the said period as on duty. Digitally signed by Sunita Dutt Sunita DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=8895, OID.2.5.4.65= 1f757d2a40f14493a01379dd12b26c68, Phone= f725f69527d0bd5de6796dc2b9018c93ad3f1f51 d1ed688256e5ff8c529bbda4, PostalCode= 110089, S=Delhi, SERIALNUMBER= 2bdd79be8aca23c53c876d55428617a4c8cc90c Dutt cfe14b22f74ffb78936ff8f7b, CN=Sunita Dutt Reason: your signing reason here Location: your signing location here Date: 2026.02.16 16:59:16+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2023.2.0 12 OA No.4566/2024 The applicant is seeking payment of back wages for the said period stating that FR 17(1) is not applicable in the instant case.
7.3 In support of his averments, the learned counsel has cited the following judgments:
(i) Deepali Gundu Surwase Vs. Kranti Junior Adhyapak Mahavidyalaya (D.Ed.) and Ors. (supra)
(ii) Union of India Vs. K.V.Janakiraman (supra)
(iii) Manoj vs. Commissioner of Police, OA No. 2245/2022
(iv) Dholi Jat vs. Commissioner of Police, OA No. 2120/2022
(v) Kumari Sangeeta vs. Commissioner of Police, OA No. 1767/2022
(i) Deepali Gundu Surwase (supra) The factual position pertaining to this case is significantly different from that obtaining in the present case.
In Deepali Gundu Surwase (supra) case, the suspension of the petitioner was ordered to be revoked by the Division bench of the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay and further it was ordered that the petitioner was entitled to all consequential benefits including back wages. The factual position outlined in the present case is not revocation of suspension but reinstatement in service considering the "impact" of concealment of facts in the attestation form filled by the applicant before offer of appointment. The nature of Digitally signed by Sunita Dutt Sunita DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=8895, OID.2.5.4.65= 1f757d2a40f14493a01379dd12b26c68, Phone= f725f69527d0bd5de6796dc2b9018c93ad3f1f51 d1ed688256e5ff8c529bbda4, PostalCode= 110089, S=Delhi, SERIALNUMBER= 2bdd79be8aca23c53c876d55428617a4c8cc90c Dutt cfe14b22f74ffb78936ff8f7b, CN=Sunita Dutt Reason: your signing reason here Location: your signing location here Date: 2026.02.16 16:59:16+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2023.2.0 13 OA No.4566/2024 concealment was considered. Moreover, the applicant was in temporary service while he was terminated from service under sub-Rule (I) of Rule 5 of CCS (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965. As the facts and circumstances of the present case are quite distinguishable from those obtaining in Deepali Gundu Surwase (supra) case, the ratio of the said case, in our view, is not applicable to the present case.
(ii) Union of India Vs. K.V. Jankiraman (supra) In K.V.Jankiraman (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court considered the matter pertaining to the "sealed cover Procedure". The learned counsel referred to Paragraphs 25 & 26 of the K.V.Jankiraman (supra) case. Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that the normal rule of "no work no pay" is not applicable to cases where the employee although is willing to work is kept away from work by authorities for no fault of his. In paragraph 26, the Apex Court talks of disciplinary/ criminal cases where the employee gets exonerated giving benefit of doubt or on account of non-availability of evidence due to the acts of employee and subsequently it postulated guidelines for the administrative authorities to decide the cases taking into all facts and circumstances of the disciplinary/criminal prosecution. Where the authorities decide to deny arrears, they should record reasons for doing so.
Digitally signed by Sunita Dutt Sunita DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=8895, OID.2.5.4.65= 1f757d2a40f14493a01379dd12b26c68, Phone= f725f69527d0bd5de6796dc2b9018c93ad3f1f51 d1ed688256e5ff8c529bbda4, PostalCode= 110089, S=Delhi, SERIALNUMBER= 2bdd79be8aca23c53c876d55428617a4c8cc90c Dutt cfe14b22f74ffb78936ff8f7b, CN=Sunita Dutt Reason: your signing reason here Location: your signing location here Date: 2026.02.16 16:59:16+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2023.2.0 14 OA No.4566/2024 In the instant case, the factual position is that the applicant neither exonerated in any disciplinary proceedings nor given any benefit of doubt or account of non-availability of any evidence due to the acts attributable to the applicant. On the other hand, he was found guilty in the criminal offence and he was fined Rs.500/- for that. In addition, he concealed the said criminal proceedings in his attestation form. Moreover, the respondents have given the reason for not granting back wages for the period from the date of termination till reinstatement in service because of the court decision. Moreover, the respondents have given reason for not granting back wages.
(iii) OA No. 2120/2022 Dholi Jat Vs. Commissioner of Police and others Paragraphs 6 and 7 of order dated 9.9.2024 of the above OA narrate the facts of the case, which are extracted as follows:
"6. Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that at no point of time, it came to notice of the applicant of her being involved in the said case FIR No. 48 of 2021 and/or in any other cases of FIR. Therefore, she cannot be held guilty of supressing of criminal involvement in the Attestation Form and/or in other form submitted before the respondents. He has argued that the findings recorded by the respondents in the impugned order are perverse on facts as well as on law. He has invited our attention to the assertions made by the applicant in the OA, particularly in 4.8 of the OA, wherein it is averred by the applicant that the said FIR was registered not on disclosure of any offence but on suspicion raised by her in-laws on the unfortunate death of her husband. At the instance of the applicant, FIR No. 0375/2020 was registered with PS Pragpura (Annexure A/3) against her Digitally signed by Sunita Dutt Sunita DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=8895, OID.2.5.4.65= 1f757d2a40f14493a01379dd12b26c68, Phone= f725f69527d0bd5de6796dc2b9018c93ad3f1f51 d1ed688256e5ff8c529bbda4, PostalCode= 110089, S=Delhi, SERIALNUMBER= 2bdd79be8aca23c53c876d55428617a4c8cc90c Dutt cfe14b22f74ffb78936ff8f7b, CN=Sunita Dutt Reason: your signing reason here Location: your signing location here Date: 2026.02.16 16:59:16+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2023.2.0 15 OA No.4566/2024 husband and in-laws as she was subjected to matrimonial offences and was living separate from her husband/in-laws.
7. The FIR No. 48/2021, lodged u/s 302, 143, 120B IPC under reference, upon completion of investigation was converted into the case of suicide. At no point of time, any notice, summon and/or any warrant was issued to the applicant by Police and/or by Competent Court of law in the said case FIR No. 48/2021 and/or any other criminal case against her. Thus, applicant cannot be held guilty of concealment of her involvement in the said case FIR."
Here also, the facts and circumstances of the present case are at variance with those obtaining in Dholi Jat (supra) case. In view of this, the ratio of said order is not applicable to the case at hand.
(iv) OA No. 1767/2022 titled Kumari Sangeeta vs. Commissioner of Police The facts of this case are also at variance with those obtaining the present case. In Kumari Sangeeta (supra), the FIR was not in knowledge of the applicant as she never received any notice nor any summon or warrant issued against her. In the instant case, the applicant was fined in the criminal case by the competent court. Hence, the ratio of the aforementioned order is not applicable to the case at hand either.
(v) OA No. 2245/2022 - Manoj Vs. Commissioner of Police Here the applicant was acquitted in the criminal case whereas in the instant case, the applicant was convicted and Digitally signed by Sunita Dutt Sunita DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=8895, OID.2.5.4.65= 1f757d2a40f14493a01379dd12b26c68, Phone= f725f69527d0bd5de6796dc2b9018c93ad3f1f51 d1ed688256e5ff8c529bbda4, PostalCode= 110089, S=Delhi, SERIALNUMBER= 2bdd79be8aca23c53c876d55428617a4c8cc90c Dutt cfe14b22f74ffb78936ff8f7b, CN=Sunita Dutt Reason: your signing reason here Location: your signing location here Date: 2026.02.16 16:59:16+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2023.2.0 16 OA No.4566/2024 imposed a fine of Rs.500/-. In view of the fact that the facts and circumstances in the present case are at variance with those obtaining in Manoj (supra) case, the ratio of the said order is not applicable in the instant case. Similarly, this Tribunal in Manoj (supra) case has applied the ratio of the judgment of Delhi High Court in Mahendra Solanki Vs. Commissioner of Police and Anr. in WP (C) No. 2219/2023. The facts of Mahendra Solanki (supra) case are at variance with the present case and hence, the ratio is not applicable. 7.4 A case of conviction and imposition of fine is significantly different from the facts and circumstances obtaining in all these cases. The person who has been convicted and imposed fine should have declared the facts truthfully in the attestation form. Concealment of such facts are serious in nature. It is different matter that this Tribunal took a lenient view of the offence and set aside the termination of the service, and the order was upheld by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court. However, neither this Tribunal nor the Hon'ble High Court opined that the applicant will be paid back wages for the period he did not work. The Hon'ble Apex Court has issued guidelines regarding the nature of the criminal cases where a person is acquitted or given the benefit of doubt. But nowhere, these guidelines are applicable when a person is convicted. In our view, the respondents Digitally signed by Sunita Dutt Sunita DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=8895, OID.2.5.4.65= 1f757d2a40f14493a01379dd12b26c68, Phone= f725f69527d0bd5de6796dc2b9018c93ad3f1f51 d1ed688256e5ff8c529bbda4, PostalCode= 110089, S=Delhi, SERIALNUMBER= 2bdd79be8aca23c53c876d55428617a4c8cc90c Dutt cfe14b22f74ffb78936ff8f7b, CN=Sunita Dutt Reason: your signing reason here Location: your signing location here Date: 2026.02.16 16:59:16+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2023.2.0 17 OA No.4566/2024 have given reasonable ground for not granting back wages to the present applicant for the period he did not work, for the fault which lies on him.
7.5 This Tribunal does find any infirmity in the order of the respondents dated 25.01.2024, invoking FR 17(1) to deny grant of back wages to the applicant applying the principle of "no work no pay". The Courts, particularly the Apex Court has outlined exception to FR 17(1) under certain circumstances. It does not imply that FR 17(1) would never be applied to any case of involvement in disciplinary or criminal cases. The fine distinction and nuance involved in those cases are absent in the case at hand. The applicant had committed an offence for which he was convicted and fined. The applicant further gave a false declaration that he was never ever involved in criminal activities, concealing the fact about the FIR as well as the fine imposed by the competent court. The magnanimity of the Tribunal and the superior court upholding the decision of the Tribunal should not be dragged to give impression that FR 17(1) does not exist and the candidates appearing for recruitment to public service would get away with all sorts of false declaration. If such kind of transgression is allowed in such cases, it would create a perverse incentive to commit crimes, whatever minor these Digitally signed by Sunita Dutt Sunita DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=8895, OID.2.5.4.65= 1f757d2a40f14493a01379dd12b26c68, Phone= f725f69527d0bd5de6796dc2b9018c93ad3f1f51 d1ed688256e5ff8c529bbda4, PostalCode= 110089, S=Delhi, SERIALNUMBER= 2bdd79be8aca23c53c876d55428617a4c8cc90c Dutt cfe14b22f74ffb78936ff8f7b, CN=Sunita Dutt Reason: your signing reason here Location: your signing location here Date: 2026.02.16 16:59:16+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2023.2.0 18 OA No.4566/2024 may be, and conceal such facts while making attestations on oath.
8. Conclusion 8.1 In view of the above analysis, the present OA lacks merit and hence dismissed.
9. No order as to costs.
10. Pending MAs, if any, stand disposed of.
(Rajveer Singh Verma) (Dr. Chhabilendra Roul)
Member (J) Member (A)
'SD'
Digitally signed by Sunita Dutt
Sunita
DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=8895, OID.2.5.4.65= 1f757d2a40f14493a01379dd12b26c68, Phone= f725f69527d0bd5de6796dc2b9018c93ad3f1f51 d1ed688256e5ff8c529bbda4, PostalCode= 110089, S=Delhi, SERIALNUMBER= 2bdd79be8aca23c53c876d55428617a4c8cc90c Dutt cfe14b22f74ffb78936ff8f7b, CN=Sunita Dutt Reason: your signing reason here Location: your signing location here Date: 2026.02.16 16:59:16+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2023.2.0