JUDGMENT : Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents. 2. The petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer for a direction upon the respondents to send entire service records of the petitioner to this Hon’ble Court. Further prayer has been made for quashing the letter dated 21.12.2016 issued by the General Manager (NW-II)-cum-Appointing Authority, State Bank of India, Patna, whereby, the respondents have refused to pay the salary of the petitioner for the period from 20.03.2002 to 30.06.2013 (deemed superannuation). The petitioner has also prayed for a direction upon the respondents to immediately and forthwith release the salary for the period from 20.03.2002 to 30.06.2013 and entire consequential benefits thereof to the petitioner as per law and in consonance with the order dated 28.06.2016 passed in L.P.A. No. 108 of 2008. 3. The facts of the case lies in a narrow compass. When the petitioner was working as Branch Manager of State Bank of India, Patna Branch, he was served with a charge-memo dated 17.06.2000, in terms of Rule 68(1) of the State Bank of India Service Rules and articles of charges were also furnished to him. Upon receipt of such charge-memo, the petitioner filed his reply denying the charges levelled against him and thereafter, a departmental enquiry was initiated, in which the petitioner was found to have performed his duties with utmost integrity and honesty but found him to be lacking diligence and devotion and held the charges to be partly proved. Thereafter, the disciplinary authority without assigning any reasons and without giving any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, differed with the enquiry report and held that the charges are fully proved. It is the further case of the petitioner, that after completion of the departmental proceeding, the appointing authority vide its order dated 20.03.2002, imposed penalty of “removal from service” under Rule 67(i) of the State Bank of India Officers Service Rules. It is pertinent to mention here that, the appointing authority had initially taken a decision to impose penalty of reduction of the grade to JMGS-I and the period of suspension was to be treated as not on duty but under the direction of the Chief Vigilance Officer, ultimately, took a decision to impose penalty of “removal from service”. It is pertinent to mention here that, the appointing authority had initially taken a decision to impose penalty of reduction of the grade to JMGS-I and the period of suspension was to be treated as not on duty but under the direction of the Chief Vigilance Officer, ultimately, took a decision to impose penalty of “removal from service”. Upon passing of such order, the petitioner preferred Appeal before the Appellate Authority-cum-Chief General Manager, State Bank of India, which was also dismissed vide order dated 15.01.2003. Thereafter, he filed a writ bearing W.P.(S). No. 3255 of 2005 against the orders of dismissal and the writ was allowed by a Coordinate Bench of this Hon’ble Court vide order dated 19.02.2008, by which the order of punishment was modified by upholding the penalty awarded by the disciplinary authority i.e. lowering down his basic pay to the bottom of MMGS-II for a period of 4 years and period of suspension to be treated as not on duty. Immediately after passing of the order by the Hon’ble Court, the petitioner represented before the respondent-authority requesting therein to allow him to join the services but the respondents had denied the same. Thereafter, State Bank of India preferred an Appeal against the order passed by the Writ Court and the same was numbered as L.P.A. No. 108 of 2008. The Division Bench of this Hon’ble Court, after hearing learned counsel for both the parties, dismissed the said LPA, however, the order was modified to the extent that petitioner shall be inflicted with penalty of reduction in the grade of JMGS-I and the period of suspension to be treated as not on duty. After passing of order by Hon’ble Division Bench, the petitioner again filed a detailed representation dated 11.07.2016 with a prayer to grant him salary for the period from 20.03.2002 till 30.06.2013 (deemed superannuation) with all consequential benefits, as the petitioner has already been superannuated during the pendency of the LPA. In the meantime, the State Bank of India filed SLP (Civil) No. 26946 of 2016 before the Hon’ble Apex Court and the Hon’ble Apex Court, after hearing learned counsel for both the parties, dismissed the said SLP. However, surprisingly, the respondents vide their letter dated 21.12.2016 denied to release the salary of the petitioner for the period from 20.03.2002 to 30.06.2013 (deemed superannuation) and all consequential benefits accruing to him. However, surprisingly, the respondents vide their letter dated 21.12.2016 denied to release the salary of the petitioner for the period from 20.03.2002 to 30.06.2013 (deemed superannuation) and all consequential benefits accruing to him. Hence, the petitioner has no option but to knock the door of this Hon’ble Court once again for redressal of his grievances. 4. Mr. Mahesh Tewari assisted by Mr. Abhishek Kumar Dubey, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner strenuously urges that the respondents being a creature of the statute cannot act beyond the four corners of the same. Learned counsel submits that action of the respondent-authorities is totally illegal, arbitrary, wholly without jurisdiction and against the settled principles of law. By not extending the benefits accrued to the petitioner, the respondents have tried to sit over as an Appellate Court over the orders passed by the Hon’ble Jharkhand High Court and which has been affirmed upto the Hon’ble Apex Court. It has also been argued that the respondents cannot deny the salary of the petitioner from 20.03.2002 till the date of his superannuation along with all consequential benefits, after treating him to be in service during the said period. The respondents cannot be allowed to deny the salary and all consequential benefits attached therewith to the petitioner on the basis of ‘No Work No Pay’ principle without any fault on the part of the petitioner and the petitioner is entitled to the salary and all consequential benefits attached therewith on the basis of catena of decisions rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court. It has also been argued that denying the legitimate dues of the petitioner by the respondent is against the Articles, 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution. It has been further argued that if the back wages of the petitioner is denied, it would create great hardship and will in compete defiance of the Court’s Order. To buttress his arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance on the following judgments:- I. Civil Appeal Nos. 5790-92 of 2002 (Amarjeet Singh & Ors. Vs. Devi Ratan & Ors.); II. Deepali Gundu Surwase Vs. Kranti Junior Adhyapak Mahavidyalaya (D.Ed.) & Ors. [ (2013) 10 SCC 324 ]; III. Fisheries Department, State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Charan Singh [ (2015) 8 SCC 150 ]. 5. Per contra, counter-affidavit has been filed by the respondents. Mr. 5790-92 of 2002 (Amarjeet Singh & Ors. Vs. Devi Ratan & Ors.); II. Deepali Gundu Surwase Vs. Kranti Junior Adhyapak Mahavidyalaya (D.Ed.) & Ors. [ (2013) 10 SCC 324 ]; III. Fisheries Department, State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Charan Singh [ (2015) 8 SCC 150 ]. 5. Per contra, counter-affidavit has been filed by the respondents. Mr. Rajesh Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that the writ petition is not maintainable for want of jurisdiction. Learned counsel argued that the petitioner has challenged the order dated 21.12.2016, which was passed by the State Bank of India, Local Head Office, Patna and also, the petitioner is residing in the State of Bihar but instead of challenging the said order before the Hon’ble Patna High Court, the petitioner has challenged the same before this Hon’ble Court and hence, the writ petition is not maintainable and is fit to be rejected on this ground only. Learned counsel further argued that before the Hon’ble Single Judge, petitioner had confined his prayer only to the extent of quantum of penalty. In the instant case, misconduct is affirmed and only the punishment is interfered with. Learned counsel submits that this case falls in the category where the misconduct is proved and reinstatement is itself a consequential benefit arising from imposition of a lesser punishment, award of back wages/ salary for the period when the employee has not worked, may amount to awarding the delinquent employee and punishing the employer for taking action against misconduct committed by the employee. It is further stated that nowhere, the Court had ever passed any order for grant of backwages and as such the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner is not tenable in the eyes of law. Therefore, petitioner is not entitled for the salary of the period when he was not in service i.e. from 20.03.2002 till 30.06.2013 and thus, the prayer made by the petitioner is totally misconceived, false and fit to be rejected outrightly. 6. Be that as it may, having gone through the rival submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the considered view that there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order dated 21.12.2016. The petitioner has preferred this writ petition for payment of salary of the period from 20.03.2002 to 30.06.2013. 6. Be that as it may, having gone through the rival submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the considered view that there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order dated 21.12.2016. The petitioner has preferred this writ petition for payment of salary of the period from 20.03.2002 to 30.06.2013. It is not a case in which the petitioner has been fully exonerated from the charges otherwise he would have been entitled for full salary of the period. Admittedly, the petitioner has been inflicted with punishment in specific and clear words, the punishment has been granted to the extent “reduction in the grade of JMGS-I and the period of suspension to be treated as not on duty.’ The petitioner is entitled for salary, only when he is fully exonerated from the charges and has not been found guilty of any charge by the Enquiry Officer. Only because the order of punishment has been modified by this Court as granted by the Appellate Authority, it cannot be said that the petitioner is entitled for full salary of the period from 20.03.2002 till 30.06.2013. As the misconduct is affirmed and only his punishment is interfered with by this Court and admittedly, the petitioner had not rendered services and did not work in that period, the impugned order is fully justified. This case falls in the category where the misconduct is proved and reinstatement is itself a consequential benefit arising from imposition of a lesser punishment, award of back wages/salary for the period when the employee has not worked, may amount to awarding the delinquent employee and as such, the petitioner is not entitled for the salary as claimed. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner that as the petitioner was reinstated, he was entitled for full back wages/ salary is not tenable in the eyes of law. The word reinstatement is defined and taken into consideration in case of Deepali Gundu Surwase Vs. Kranti Junior Adhyapak Mahavidyalaya (D.ED.) & Ors. reported in (2013) 10 SCC 324 reads as under:- 21. The word ‘reinstatement’ has not been defined in the Act and the Rules. As per Shorter Oxford English Dictionary, Vol. The word reinstatement is defined and taken into consideration in case of Deepali Gundu Surwase Vs. Kranti Junior Adhyapak Mahavidyalaya (D.ED.) & Ors. reported in (2013) 10 SCC 324 reads as under:- 21. The word ‘reinstatement’ has not been defined in the Act and the Rules. As per Shorter Oxford English Dictionary, Vol. 2, 3rd Edn., the word ‘reinstate’ means to reinstall or re-establish (a person or thing in a place, station, condition, etc.); to restore to its proper or original state; to reinstate afresh and the word “ reinstatement” means the action of reinstating; re-establishment. As per Law Lexicon, 2nd Edn., the word “reinstate” means to reinstall; to re-establish; to place again in a former state condition or office; to restore to a state or position from which the object or person had been removed and the word “reinstatement” means establishing in former condition, position or authority (as) reinstatement of a deposed prince. As per Merriam-Webster Dictionary, the word “reinstate” means to place again (as in possession or in a former position), to restore to a previous effective state. As per Black’s Law Dictionary, 6th Edn.; “reinstatement” means: “To reinstall, to re-establish, to place again in a former state, condition, or office; to restore to a state or position from which the object or person had been removed.” In the instant case, the petitioner has not been put to place from which he has been removed rather he was inflicted with punishment and as such it can be comfortably said that he was not put in the same position as was holding before the removal or termination of services. Reinstatement clearly means that employee will be put in the same position in which he would have been, but in this case, ratio does not apply, the employee has not been put to a same position and as such, he is not entitled for the back wages. 7. The Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Novartis India Ltd. Vs. State of W.B, reported in (2009) 3 SCC 124 has held, para 22, as under:- 22. “It is also trite that for the purpose of grant of back wages, conduct of the workman concerned also plays a vital role. Each decision, as regards grant of back wages or the quantum thereof, would, therefore, depend on the fact of each case. State of W.B, reported in (2009) 3 SCC 124 has held, para 22, as under:- 22. “It is also trite that for the purpose of grant of back wages, conduct of the workman concerned also plays a vital role. Each decision, as regards grant of back wages or the quantum thereof, would, therefore, depend on the fact of each case. Back wages are ordinarily to be granted, keeping in view the principles of grant of damages in mind. It cannot be claimed as a matter of right.” The Hon’ble Apex Court in case of J.K. Synthetics Ltd. Vs. K.P. Agrawal, reported in (2007)2 SCC 433 has held, para 19, as under:- 19. What requires to be noted in cases where finding of misconduct is affirmed and only the punishment is interfered with (as contrasted from cases where termination is held to be illegal or void) is that there is no automatic reinstatement; and if reinstatement is directed, it is not automatically with retrospective effect from the date of termination. Therefore, where reinstatement is a consequence of imposition of a lesser punishment, neither back wages nor continuity of service nor consequential benefits, follow as a natural or necessary consequence of such reinstatement. In cases where the misconduct is held to be proved, and reinstatement is itself a consequential benefit arising from imposition of a lesser punishment, award of back wages for the period when the employee has not worked, may amount to rewarding the delinquent employee and punishing the employer for taking action for the misconduct committed by the employee. That should be avoided. Similarly, in such cases, even where continuity of service is directed, it should only be for purpose of pensionary/retirement benefits, and not for other benefits like increments, promotions etc. 8. Further, nothing has been brought on record to show that employee was not gainfully employed during the period he was put out of service. In view of the aforesaid legal proposition, judicial pronouncements, this Court is of the view that no case is made out for interference. There is no merit in this case. Resultantly, the writ petition stands dismissed.