Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 3484 (ALL)

Jitendra Kumar Pathak v. State of U. P.

2015-11-04

A.P.SAHI, ATTAU RAHMAN MASOODI

body2015
JUDGMENT This writ petition is directed against the order and judgement rendered by U.P. Public Services Tribunal in Claim Petition No. 670 of 1999 on 15.2.2010 whereby the Tribunal while setting aside the order of dismissal from service, has allowed the claim petition with all consequential benefits except back wages. 2. From a perusal of the judgement passed by the Tribunal, we gather that the order of dismissal from service has been set aside by recording categorical finding to the effect that the disciplinary authority before passing the impugned order of dismissal from service, had failed to observe procedure prescribed under law in respect of providing relevant documents to the petitioner and on some other procedure irregularities as well. 3. In the normal course, the Tribunal ought to have left it open to the departmental authorites for proceeding against the petitioner but we find that the judgement passed by the Tribunal was not assailed by the departmental authorities and has been allowed to attain finality. On the contrary, the delinquent employee has assailed the judgement/order passed by the Tribunal to the extent it denies the benefit of back wages to him. 4. Noticeably, once the department has given up departmental enquiry against the petitioner, it would lead to an inference as if the department had given up the allegations levelled against the petitioner, who, for none of the faults attributable to him, stood prevented from discharging active service. 5. We also notice that the Tribunal while passing the impugned jugement on the aspect of denial of back wages, has not recorded any justifiable reason whatsoever but in the operative part of the judgement the payment of back wages has been denied which part of the judgement proceeds without dealing with the relevant consideration on the issue involved. 6. From a perusal of the relief sought before the Tribunal, we have seen that the petitioner had prayed not only for declaration of the impugned dismissal order as bad in the eye of law but also had prayed for all the consequential benefits arising therefrom. Once the definite relief was prayed for by the petitioner before the learned Tribunal, it was incumbent upon the Services Tribunal to have framed an issue and applied mind having regard to the relevant material and the position of law applicable in this behalf. Once the definite relief was prayed for by the petitioner before the learned Tribunal, it was incumbent upon the Services Tribunal to have framed an issue and applied mind having regard to the relevant material and the position of law applicable in this behalf. On a close scrutiny of the impugned judgement, we see no reason or finding recorded by the Tribunal which may justify the denial of back wages. 7. It is well settled that when a government servant is prevented from discharging duties on account of some disciplinary action taken by the employer against him and ultimately the delinquent employee is completely exonerated, in such a situation, denial of back wages is not just and proper. This proposition is reiterated by the apex court in the case of Gurpal Singh Vs. High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan reported in (2012) 13 SCC 94 . 8. Applying the same principle of law and in absence of any reason recorded adverse to the interest of the petitioner except that the petitioner has not actually worked from the date of dismissal from service up to the date of judgement by the Tribunal, it would not be just and proper to deprive the petitioner of back wages completely particularly when he had rendered a considerable length of service and was at the fag end of his service career. 9. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case, it would be just and proper to allow the claim of back wages up to the extent of 50% and to this extent, the judgement passed by the Tribunal stands modified. The payment of back wages in terms of this order shall be made to the petitioner within a period of three months from the date a certified copy of this order is filed before the competent authority. 10. The petition stands allowed in part. No order as to cost.