Case Note & Summary
Background: The case arose from a service dispute concerning an Extra-Departmental Agent in the postal department who was removed from service after a departmental enquiry. The Sub-Divisional Inspector (Postal) and others filed appeals by special leave against an order of the Central Administrative Tribunal directing payment of back wages to the respondent employee. Facts: The respondent was charge-sheeted on June 6, 1985 under Rule 8 of the P & T Extra Departmental Agents (Conduct and Services) Rules, 1964 for misconduct of temporary absence from duty. The initial enquiry was cancelled on March 31, 1986 and a fresh enquiry was conducted. On conclusion of the departmental proceedings, the respondent was removed from service by order dated July 9, 1990. He challenged the removal before the Tribunal. On May 28, 1992, the Tribunal remitted the matter for reconsideration on the nature of punishment; that order was unsuccessfully challenged in the Supreme Court and became final. When the order of removal was passed again, it was challenged and the Tribunal by order dated September 4, 1993 quashed the proceedings and directed reconsideration of the quantum of punishment on the basis of amended rules. A special leave petition against that order was dismissed. Consequently, the respondent was reinstated. He then filed another application, and in the impugned order dated December 5, 1995 in O.A. No.787/94, the Tribunal directed payment of back wages. Legal Issues: The central question was whether the respondent employee, whose removal was converted into reinstatement with a lesser punishment, was entitled to back wages. Arguments: The appellants contended that because the respondent was found responsible for misconduct, albeit with a lesser punishment, he should not receive back wages. The respondent sought back wages upon reinstatement. Court's Analysis: The Supreme Court noted that imposition of punishment is within the discretion of the disciplinary authority, but that discretion must be exercised properly considering all relevant facts and circumstances. The Court referred to Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation v. Bhagyo Mal & Ors., where it was held that when an employee deserves punishment on account of misconduct and a lesser punishment is awarded, back wages need not be granted. The present case involved temporary absence, and the order of dismissal had been converted into reinstatement with lesser punishment, but the employee was still found responsible for misconduct. The Tribunal erred in directing back wages. Decision: The Supreme Court allowed the appeals and held that the respondent was not entitled to back wages. No costs were awarded.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Back Wages - Discretion of Disciplinary Authority - P & T Extra Departmental Agents (Conduct and Services) Rules, 1964, Rule 8 - Respondent employee was charge-sheeted for temporary absence and removed from service; Tribunal later directed reconsideration of punishment and eventually reinstatement; Tribunal also directed payment of back wages. Supreme Court held that because the employee was found responsible for misconduct though a lesser punishment was imposed, back wages could not be granted. Following Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation v. Bhagyo Mal, the Court held respondent not entitled to back wages and allowed the appeals (Pages 1-2).
Issue of Consideration
Whether an employee who was removed from service for temporary absence and later reinstated with a lesser punishment is entitled to back wages.
Final Decision
Appeals allowed; respondent held not entitled to back wages; no costs.
Law Points
- Imposition of punishment is in the discretion of the disciplinary authority
- back wages not automatic upon reinstatement with lesser punishment when misconduct is proved
- employee responsible for misconduct not entitled to back wages
- disciplinary authority must exercise discretion considering relevant facts and circumstances.
