JUDGMENT 1. - The instant petition has been preferred by the petitioner only for the consequential benefits as the main relief has been granted by the Reviewing Authority by the order dated 6-5-1994 contained in Annexure P-1 to the writ petition. The grievance of the petitioner, who is a police constable, is that the respondent No. 3, while executing the said order of the Reviewing Authority His Excellency the Governor, has not given the back wages vide order dated 4-3-1995 contained in Annexure P- 3. 2. The instant case has a chequered history and it is second round of litigation before this Court between the parties. The proceedings commenced when the Disciplinary Authority issued the show cause notice dated 15-2-1977, in respect of the incident which occurred on 3-2-1977, to the petitioner with the following charges: (i) the petitioner has taken a house on rent without permission of the competent authority; (ii) The petitioner left the police lines without permission and went to his rented house and consumed liquor along with Constable Bajrangi Singh and others; (iii) After consuming the liquor, he went along with Bajrangi Singh and others in the nearby Mohalla and started shouting, shrinking and created an unwarranted scene and abused the persons who tried to pacify them; and (iv) When the petitioner, Bajrangi Singh and others were apprehended by the local persons, he apologised and got himself relieved. Thereafter he went back to the place of the occurrence along with other persons and got his friends relieved. 3. After completing the requirements of law, the Disciplinary Authority passed the order of punishment against the petitioner and Bajrangi Singh on 20-5-1977 awarding the punishment of removal to both of them. Being aggrieved, the petitioner and Bajrangi Singh filed statutory appeal before the appellate authority and on 14-10-1977, the appeal of Bajrangi Singh Constable was partly accepted and the punishment of removal from service was converted into the stoppage of one annual grade increment with cumulative effect. However, the appeal of the petitioner was rejected vide order dated 6-5-1978. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied, the petitioner filed the review petition and it was dismissed by the Reviewing Authority by the order dated 23-6-1981, against which the petitioner preferred S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1640/1991, which was disposed of by this Court vide judgment and order dated 4-3-1992. However, the appeal of the petitioner was rejected vide order dated 6-5-1978. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied, the petitioner filed the review petition and it was dismissed by the Reviewing Authority by the order dated 23-6-1981, against which the petitioner preferred S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1640/1991, which was disposed of by this Court vide judgment and order dated 4-3-1992. The Court held that as originally there was sufficient evidence and the finding recorded by the Enquiry Officer that the gravity of offence committed by Bajrangi Singh was of more serious nature than that of the petitioner; thus, it was discriminatory to award the punishment of removal to the petitioner. This Court remanded the case back to the Reviewing Authority to pass a fresh order considering the case of Bajrangi Singh. 4. The Reviewing Authority passed the order on 6-5-1994 and put the petitioner at par with Bajrangi Singh. While passing the order dated 6-5-1994, the Reviewing Authority considered the grievances of the petitioner that the role assigned to Bajrangi Singh was of more serious nature than that of the petitioner and ultimately the Reviewing Authority ordered that he should be put at par with Bajrangi Singh. In pursuance to the said order passed by the Reviewing Authority, the impugned order dated 4-3-1995 contained in Annexure P-3 has been passed, by which the petitioner has been reinstated and the punishment has been converted from removal to stoppage of one annual grade increment with cumulative effect. However, the period from the date of removal, i.e., from 20-5-1977 to 28-4-1994, has been treated as "leave without pay" and this is the real grievance of the petitioner that his pay etc. had been forfeited for a period of more than sixteen years. 5. Heard Mr. M. Mridul, Senior Advocate with Mr. R.N. Upadhyaya learned counsel for the petitioner, and Mr. Rajendra Vyas learned Counsel for the respondents. 6. Mr. Vyas has straightway submitted that the order of the Reviewing Authority has been complied with in the letter and spirit. The order had been to put the petitioner at par with Constable Bajrangi Singh. The period of absenteeism from 20-5-1977 to 14-10-1977 was, also, treated as the leave without pay in the case of Bajrangi Singh and the same. treatment has been awarded to the petitioner. Mr. The order had been to put the petitioner at par with Constable Bajrangi Singh. The period of absenteeism from 20-5-1977 to 14-10-1977 was, also, treated as the leave without pay in the case of Bajrangi Singh and the same. treatment has been awarded to the petitioner. Mr. Mridul has submitted that it would be a great injustice to deprive the petitioner of the salary of more than sixteen years only for the reason that the appellate authority has passed a discriminatory order against the petitioner. Had the appeal been partly accepted on 6-5-1978, comparing the case of the petitioner with Constable Bajrangi Singh, he could have no grievance, but the matter remained pending in the Courts and before the competent authority for sixteen years which was beyond the control of the petitions and there can be no justification to deprive him of the back wages for a period of sixteen years. The issue of entitlement of back wages has been considered time and again by the Hon'ble Apex Court and it has been dealt with differently in different circumstances:- (A) If the termination order is quashed, the employee would be entitled for reinstatement and full back wages, unless there are reasons on record which would justify a departure from the normal order and in that case, the party objecting to it must establish the circumstances necessitated departure. (Vide : Punjab National Bank Ltd. v. P.N.B. Employees Federation, AIR 1960 SC 160 ; Hindustan Tin Workers Pvt. Ltd. v. Employees of Hindustan Tin Works Pvt. Ltd., AIR 1979 SC 75 ; Manorma Verma v. State of Bihar, 1994 Supp (3) SCC 671 : [1995(7) SLR 205 (SC)] ; Santosh Yadav v. State of Haryana, 1996 (9) SCC 320 : [ 1996(4) SLR 240 (SC)] ; Ramesh Chandra v. Delhi Administration, 1996(10) SCC 409 : [ 1996(5) SLR 166 (SC)] ; and Daya Ram Dayal v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 1997(7) SCC 443 : [1997(5) SLR 292 (SC)] . (B) If the impugned termination order is set aside only on the ground of being provided with a severe punishment, i.e., where the competent Court comes to the conclusion that the quantum of punishment was not commensurate with the gravity of misconduct, delinquent employee will not be entitled for back wages for the reason that "public money could not be spent as a premium for such deviant conduct." (Vide : Sub-Divisional Inspector (Postal) v. K.K.Pavitheran, 1996(11) SCC 695 ; Rajasthan State Road Corporation v. Bhagyomal, 1994 Suppl (1) SCC 573 : [1993(8) SLR 423 (SC)] ; Malkiat Singh v. State of Punjab, 1996(7) SCC 634 : [ 1996(2) SLR 17 (SC)] ; and Deputy Commissioner of Police v. Akhlaq Ahmad, 1995 SCC (L & S) 897) : [ 1995(4) SLR 772 (SC)] . (C) If termination order is quashed on technical grounds, where the authority can further proceed against the delinquent employee, the question of payment of back wages, in case reinstatement is ordered, should invariably be left to be decided by the authority concerned according to law, after the culmination of the proceedings and depending on the final outcome. (Vide : C.B. Judgment in Managing Director ECIL Ltd. v. B. Karunakar, 1993(4) SCC 727 [1993(5) SLR 684 (SC)] . 7. The instant case is a peculiar one as the facts and circumstances of the case, if taken into consideration as a whole than one has to reach an inescapable conclusion that the order of appellate authority dated 6-5-1977 was not only unjustified and unwarranted but was, also, discriminatory and hence arbitrary. The matter remained pending for sixteen long years before the authority/Court etc. and for this petitioner could not be blamed as it was beyond his control. Thus, in view of the above, I am of the opinion that the ends of justice will be met if the petition is allowed directing the respondents to pay the petitioner 50% (fifty per cent) of the back wages for the said period. 8. Accordingly, the writ petition filed by the petitioner is allowed and the respondents are directed to pay to the petitioner 50% of the back wages for the aforesaid period. The whole exercise is to be done by the respondents within a period of six months from the date of submitting the representation for back wages along with the certified copy of this judgment. The whole exercise is to be done by the respondents within a period of six months from the date of submitting the representation for back wages along with the certified copy of this judgment. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the parties are left to bear their own costs.Order accordingly. *******