Dismissal of employee for unauthorized absence justifies "No Work No Pay" treatment upon reinstatement if fully exonerated.

The petitioner, a police constable appointed in 1977, was suspended in February 2001 for unauthorized absence from election duty.

He remained absent for 264 days, claiming mental illness (dementia) and undergoing treatment in Ranchi and Ara.

Upon reporting back in November 2001, a departmental proceeding was initiated, leading to his dismissal from service on November 27, 2005.

On October 30, 2012, the Appellate Authority set aside the dismissal, reinstated the petitioner with "two black marks," but ordered that the intervening period (2005–2012) be treated on the principle of "no work no pay" and adjusted against extraordinary leave.

1. Whether a reinstated employee is entitled to full back wages for the period of dismissal when the dismissal is set aside by the Appellate Authority on sympathetic grounds rather than full exoneration.

2. Whether the principle of "no work no pay" applies where an employee is kept away from work due to a dismissal order that is later modified in appeal.

The Court applied Rule 12 of the Bihar Government Servants (CCA) Rules, 2005, which governs pay and allowances upon reinstatement after dismissal/removal.

Rule 12(2) allows full pay only if the employee is fully exonerated or if the order is set aside solely on technical grounds of non-compliance with rules.

The Court also interpreted the Supreme Court precedent Union of India v. K.V. Jankiraman (1991 AIR 2010), which holds that the "no work no pay" rule is inapplicable if an employee is willing to work but is kept away by the authorities for "no fault of his own".

The Court distinguished the petitioner’s case from K.V. Jankiraman, noting that the petitioner was not kept away for "no fault of his own"; rather, he was a dismissed employee whose absence originated from unauthorized leave without permission.

The Appellate Authority had not exonerated the petitioner but had found him guilty of unauthorized absence, merely substituting the "exorbitant" punishment of dismissal with "two black marks" on sympathetic grounds.

Under Rule 12(4) and 12(6) of the CCA Rules, if an employee is not fully exonerated, the disciplinary authority maintains the discretion to determine the proportion of pay for the intervening period.

The court found that because the petitioner failed to inform the department of his illness or obtain sanctioned leave, the Appellate Authority's decision to apply "no work no pay" was legally sound and consistent with the lack of work performed during the dismissal period.

The writ application was dismissed, and the order of the Appellate Authority was upheld without interference.