Allahabad High Court
C/M Muslim Inter College And Another vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others on 16 December, 2022
Author: Manoj Misra
Bench: Manoj Misra
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD Reserved on: 10.11.2022 Delivered on: 16.12.2022 Court No. - 29 Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 716 of 2022 Appellant :- C/M Muslim Inter College And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Appellant :- Uma Nath Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Jayant Prakash Singh Connected With Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 715 of 2022 Appellant :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Respondent :- Naeem Ahmad And 2 Others Counsel for Appellant :- Tej Bhanu Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- Jayant Prakash Singh Hon'ble Manoj Misra,J.
Hon'ble Vikas Budhwar,J.
(Delivered by Vikas Budhwar,J.) (1) As both these appeals arise from a common judgment and an order passed in Writ-A no. 11458 of 2017, they are being decided by a common judgment and order.
(2) Special Appeal Defective No. 538 of 2022 (Regular No. 716 of 2022) has been preferred by the Committee of Management of Muslim Inter College, Thakurdwar, which is a minority institution, against the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge dated 25.7.2022 in Writ-A No. 11458 of 2017. After we had heard the aforesaid appeal, another Special Appeal Defective no. 547 of 2022 (Regular No. 715 of 2022) was preferred against the same order by the State of U.P. As we had already entertained the earlier appeal and had reserved our orders, the learned Standing Counsel who appeared in the subsequent appeal requested us to decide the subsequent appeal along with first appeal by adopting the arguments advanced on behalf of the Management in the earlier appeal. As a result whereof, we condoned the delay in filing of the subsequent appeal and reserved our orders on 17.11.2022. Now both these appeals are being decided by a common judgment and order.
(3) For the sake of convenience, we are referring to the facts and the issues raised in Special Appeal No. 716 of 2022 by treating it as the lead appeal. To avoid confusion respondent no.4 on whose petition, the order was passed by the learned Single Judge is being referred to as the writ petitioner.
(4) In a nutshell the facts giving rise to the two appeals are as follows:-
(5) The writ petitioner (Naeem Ahmad) was appointed as Principal of the Institution, of which the appellant claims to be the Management Committee, on 22.12.2008. According to the writ petitioner, the Management was not happy with the appointment of the writ petitioner and, therefore, they started interfering in the functioning of the writ petitioner. In that regard, Writ-A No. 63186 of 2008 was filed which came to be dismissed as infructuous on 09.4.2014 as, by then, by a resolution dated 9.03.2009 the Committee of Management resolved to terminate the services of the writ petitioner. Against the said resolution, the writ petitioner filed Writ A No. 18010 of 2009, which came to be allowed by order dated 25.5.2009 with liberty to the Committee of Management to take action as per the provisions of Chapter III Regulations 35-37 framed under U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 (for short '1921 Act'). Consequent to the order passed in Writ A No. 18010 of 2009, the writ petitioner was reinstated in service. A notice was served upon the writ petitioner on 21.09.2015 seeking his explanation on certain acts and omission committed by him. On 29.09.2015 the appellants placed the writ petitioner under suspension. A reply was submitted by the writ petitioner, thereafter on 03.10.2015 a two member inquiry committee was constituted to investigate the complaint filed against him on 18.09.2015. A reply was submitted by the petitioner on 06.10.2015 denying the allegation made in the said complaint. On 06.10.2015 a five member committee was constituted in place of two member inquiry committee. A charge sheet was served upon the writ petitioner on 14.10.2015. It is claimed by the writ petitioner that on 05.11.2015 the five member inquiry committee submitted the inquiry report to the District Inspector of Schools, Moradabad holding all the charges proved behind his back, without associating him.
(6) A show cause notice was also issued on 19.11.2015 requiring the writ petitioner to submit his reply and be present on 26.11.2015 for personal hearing. According to writ petitioner due to certain unavoidable circumstances he could not appear to submit his reply to the show cause notice/inquiry report and thereafter, on account of death of his father, took fifteen days further time to submit reply. On 25.01.2016 the suspension of the writ petitioner was approved by DIOS, Moradabad. Challenging the order dated 29.09.2015 placing the writ petitioner under suspension and the order dated 25.01.2016 approving the suspension, writ petitioner filed Writ-A No. 11724 of 2016 which came to be disposed of on 11.04.2016 with a direction to conclude the departmental proceedings within a period of one month. On 27.04.2016 the appellant institution on the basis of the resolution no. 3 dated 20.04.2016 terminated the services of the writ petitioner.
(7) Challenging the order dated 27.04.2016 passed by the appellant herein as well as the inquiry report dated 05.11.2015, the writ petitioner filed Writ- A No. 11458 of 2017. After exchange of affidavits, the said writ petition came to be allowed on 25.07.2022 while quashing the order dated 27.04.2016, terminating the services of the writ petitioner as well as the inquiry report dated 05.11.2015 with a direction to reinstate the writ petitioner in services and to permit him to work on the post of Principal with effect from 01.08.2022. Writ petitioner was also made admissible for arrears of salary within eight weeks from passing of the order by the learned Single Judge and payment of regular salary of month to month basis from 01.08.2022. It was further provided that in case the writ petitioner was not reinstated and salary not paid then the same would attract 8% interest from the date of entitlement till the amount is paid to him, leaving it open to Appellant to conduct fresh inquiry in accordance with law if it so desires. Liberty was also accorded to the State Government to recover the said amount which is to be paid to the writ petitioner from the Public Servant concerned found irresponsible for delay in compliance of the Writ Court order.
(8) Against the order dated 25.07.2022 passed in Writ-A No. 11458 of 2017 the Committee of Management of the institution as well as the State of U.P. have preferred the present intra-court appeal.
(9) Sri Radhakant Ojha, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Uma Nath Pandey, who had appeared for the appellants have urged that the learned Single Judge fell in error in allowing the writ petition in as much as the inquiry proceedings has been conducted after complying with the principles of natural justice as not only the charge sheet was served upon the writ petitioner but he was given ample opportunity to participate in the inquiry proceedings, but the writ petitioner avoided to participate in the inquiry proceedings which ultimately resulted in submission of the inquiry report by five member inquiry on 05.11.2015 and after issuing a show cause notice accompanied with the inquiry report, further opportunity was accorded to the writ petitioner to submit his reply/objection and after considering the same the order dated 27.04.2016 has been passed based upon the resolution passed by the Committee of Management of the appellant institution. In other words the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant is that there has been full compliance of the provisions contained under Chapter III Regulations 35 to 37 of the U.P. Intermediate Act, 1921. Lastly it was argued that in case the learned Single Judge found the inquiry to be in violation of principle of natural justice and not in terms of the provisions contained under Chapter III Regulations 35 to 37 of the U.P. Intermediate Act, 1921 (though disputed), then the proper course open for the learned Single Judge was to have remitted the matter back before inquiry officer to hold fresh inquiry from the stage of submissions of the objection to the charge sheet the direction of the learned Single Judge to reinstate the writ petitioner in service while granting arrears and current salary with all consequential benefits was uncalled for as at best the matter ought to have been left upon to the disciplinary authority to take an appropriate decision with regard to either placing the writ petitioner under suspension or not for the purposes of conducting fresh inquiry while making the writ petitioner admissible to subsistence allowances and the payment of consequential benefits and reinstatement be dependent and subject to final out come of the fresh inquiry. Sri Ojha in order to substantiate his submission has relied upon the following judgments:-
(i) Managing Director, Ecil, Hyderabad And Others Vs B. Karunakar Etc. reported in (1993) 4 SCC 727.
(ii) Hiran Mayee Bhattacharyya Vs. Secretary, SM School For Girls And Others reported in (2002) 10 SCC 293.
(iii) Chairman, Life Insurance Corporation Of India And Others Vs. A. Masilamani reported in (2013) 6 SCC 530.
(iv) U.P. State Spinning Co. Ltd. Vs. R.S. Pandey And Another reporter in (2005) 8 SCC 264.
(v) Union of India Vs. Y.S. Sadhu, Ex-Inspector reported in (2008) 12 SCC 30.
(vi) State Bank Of India And Others Vs. Mohammad Badruddin reported in (2019) 16 SCC 69.
(vii) Civil Appeal No. 2049-2050 of 2022 The State of Uttar Pradesh And Ors. Vs. Rajit Singh.
(viii) Civil Appeal No. 1576 of 2019 State of Uttar Pradesh And Ors. Vs. Prabhat Kumar.
(ix) Civil Appeal No. 6776 of 2022 The Inspector of Panchayats and District Collector, Salem Vs. S. Arichndran & Ors.
(10) Sri T.B. Pandey, learned Standing Counsel who appears in the connected appeal has adopted the arguments of Sri Ojha however, he has additionally argued that the direction issued for reinstating the writ petitioner as well as for payment of current and arrears of salary, taking of action for recovery from public servant concerned itself was uncalled for particularly when as per case of the writ petitioner, there was a technical defect in holding disciplinary inquiry against him.
(11) Countering the said submission Sri H.N. Singh, learned Single Judge assisted by Sri J.P. Singh who appears for the writ petitioner has argued that the judgment and the order passed by the learned Single Judge needs no interference in the present intra-court appeals as the present case is a classic example of harassment meted by the writ petitioner as on the basis of a complaint lodged against the writ petitioner a three member committee was constituted on 03.10.2015 which got replaced by a five member committee on 06.10.2015, even before the issuance of the charge sheet. According to him, the inquiry proceedings were conducted behind the back of the writ petitioner in utter violation of principle of natural justice as well as in teeth of provisions contained under Chapter III Regulation 35 to 37 even without maintaining the record of the inquiry proceedings, the inquiry report was submitted before disciplinary authority holding the writ petitioner guilty of the charges levelled in the charge sheet dated 14.10.2015. Sri Singh while drawing attention towards the inquiry report dated 05.11.2015 has further contended that the statements of complainants Kumari Rubi and Kumari Sonam which was also made the basis to bring home one of the charges has been taken behind the back of the writ petitioner and the writ petitioner was also not given an opportunity to cross examine them. Sri Singh has further argued that the directions of learned Single Judge regarding reinstatement and payment of arrears and current salary was perfectly justified which need no interference in the present proceedings as once the very basis of conducting alleged departmental inquiry stood eroded then the natural consequences would be that writ petitioner is to be reinstated in services with all consequential benefits. Additionally, it has also been argued that the interest of the appellant Committee of Management stood safeguarded while granting liberty to conduct fresh inquiry if it so warranted.
(12) Learned counsel for the appellant in support of his contentions has referred to the judgment in the case of Deepali Gundu Surwase Vs. Kranti Junior Adhyapak Mahavidyalaya (D.Ed.) and Others reported in (2013) 10 SCC 324 and Pradeep s/o Rajkumr Jain Vs. Manganese Ore (India) Limited and Others reported in (2022) 3 SCC 683.
(13) We have thoughtfully considered the submission of the rival parties and have perused the record carefully.
(14) Undisputedly, the writ petitioner was a regularly selected Principal of the appellant institution. It is not in dispute that there were certain complaints against the writ petitioner. The complaint was forwarded to the writ petitioner on 21.09.2015, a reply to which was submitted by the writ petitioner on 28/29.09.2015. The writ petitioner was also placed under suspension and a two member committee was constituted on 31.10.2015. On 06.10.2015 a five member committee was constituted in place of two member committee to conduct inquiry against the writ petitioner. On 14.10.2015 a charge sheet was issued under the signature of one Dr. Mohd. Ullah Chaudhary Ex-MLA containing as many as four charges. Record further reveals that on 05.11.2015 a five member inquiry committee submitted an inquiry report before the District Inspector of Schools, Moradabad holding the charges to be proved.
(15) Perusal of the inquiry report dated 05.11.2015 reveals that the five member enquiry committee fixed 15.10.2015, 26.10.2015 and 27.10.2015 for recording of statements of witnesses. It is alleged that intimation of the date fixed for inquiry was initially given telephonically and later by a letter dated 14.10.2015. It is further claimed that a letter through a bearer was sent on 24.10.2015. On 27.10.2015 another intimation was sent by a letter through bearer to which a comment in the form of note was affixed by writ petitioner that he was ill and after recovering he would attend the inquiry proceeding.
(16) It is further not in dispute that in order to hold one of the charges proved against the writ petitioner, the statements of Kumari Rubi and Kumari Sonam were recorded by the inquiry officer. The inquiry report does not disclose the date, time and the venue where the statements of the aforesaid witnesses were recorded. It has also not depicted in the inquiry report as to whether any prior information was given to the writ petitioner to cross examine the said witnesses. The inquiry committee in inquiry report has though referred to the charges pertaining to misappropriation and defalcation of the funds of Uniforms, Scout, Mid Day Meal, expenditures of Science Faculty, expenditures of Geography Faculty, Examination Account, P.T.A. Account, Computer Account, R.D., LIC and NSC, Accounts of the Staff Registration of the student in Intermediate and High School but only conclusion have been recorded holding the said allegations to be proved without assigning any reasons as to how the writ petitioner was held guilty of the said charges. As per the provisions contained under Chapter III Regulations 35 to 37 of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921, the inquiry officer during the course of the inquiry was enjoined to prepare and maintain the proceedings containing sufficient record of evidence and the statement of finding and grounds thereof, but on a specific query made from the Sri Ojha who appears for the appellant about preparation and maintenance of record of said inquiry proceedings, his reply was that proceedings of the inquiry containing evidence and statement of the findings and grounds was maintained by inquiry committee. We therefore insisted Sri Ojha to place the proceedings of the inquiry committee maintained during the course of the inquiry to which Sri Ojha invited the attention of the Court towards the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the appellant sworn by Khaleel Ahmad Manager of the appellant institution, referring to annexure-6 at page 427 of the paper book. A perusal of the said proceedings reveals that the said proceedings are dated 09.04.2016, which is much subsequent to the inquiry report dated 05.11.2015. Sri Ojha then however made a categorical statement that barring the said proceedings dated 09.04.2016 there was no other proceedings maintained by the inquiry committee in terms of Chapter III Regulation 36 of the 1921 Act. Sri Ojha also could not dispute the findings recorded by the learned Single Judge that the inquiry committee did not maintain the proceedings which was required to be maintained as per the aforesaid regulation. Nevertheless, the order dated 27.04.2016 passed by the appellant terminating the services of the writ petitioner reveals that the disciplinary authority had though relied upon the inquiry report dated 05.11.2015 and recorded a finding that the copy of the inquiry report was furnished to the writ petitioner on 31.03.2016 and 09.04.2016 was the date fixed for giving opportunity of personal hearing to the writ petitioner but he appeared little late on the said date and required furnishing of certain documents which according to appellants was already furnished on 14.12.2015 pursuant to the order of the District Inspector of Schools, Moradabad on 08.12.2015. In the order dated 27.04.2016 it also stated that on 14.04.2016 again the staid document were demanded and the same was furnished, fixing 20.04.2016 as the date of hearing. It is alleged that on 20.04.2016 neither the writ petitioner appeared in the hearing nor furnished his reply hence by virtue of the Resolution No. 3 of the Management dated 20.04.2016, the services of the writ petitioner was terminated on 27.04.2016. We may record that the order dated 27.04.2016 terminating the service of the writ petitioner is not only non speaking but also unreasoned showing total non application of mind, as on the basis of a defective inquiry, the disciplinary authority has terminated the services of the writ petitioner. The Court finds that right from the inception, post submission of reply to the charge sheet inquiry proceedings was conducted in utter violation of not only of the principle of natural justice but in direct teeth of the Regulations.
(17) Once we have held with the entire inquiry proceedings from the stage of submission of the reply of the writ petitioner to the charge sheet is itself defective and in violation of the statutory regulations then what would be the natural legal consequences which would flow there from.
(18) Before coming to any conclusion on the said aspect of the matter it would be apposite to refer to the judicial pronouncement on the said issue.
(19) To start with we may refer to the authoritative pronouncement in the case of Managing Director, ECIL (Supra) wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court observed as under:
"It is only if the Courts/ Tribunals find that the furnishing of the report would have made a difference to the result in the case that should set aside the order of punishment. Where after following the above procedure the Courts/Tribunals sets aside the order of punishment, the proper relief that should be granted is to direct reinstatement of the employee with liberty to the authority, management to proceed with the inquiry, by placing the employee under suspension and continuing the inquiry from the stage of furnishing him with the report. The question whether the employee would be entitled to the back-wages and other benefits from the date of his dismissal to the date of his reinstatement if ultimately 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. If the employee succeeds in the fresh inquiry and is directed to be reinstated, the authority should be at liberty to decide according to law how it will treat the period from the date of dismissal till the reinstatement and to what benefits, if any and the extent of the benefits, he will be entitled. The reinstatement made as a result of the setting aside of the inquiry for failure to furnish the report should be treated as a reinstatement for the purpose of holding the fresh inquiry from the stage of furnishing the report and no more, where such fresh inquiry is held. That will also be the correct position in law."
(20) The aforesaid proposition of law has been reiterated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Hiran Mayee Bhattacharyya (Supra) and U.P. State Spinning Co. Ltd. (Supra).
(21) Following the above noted judgment the Hon'ble Apex Court in Y.S. Sadhu, Ex-Inspector (Supra) has observed as under:-
"3. Challenge in the writ appeal was to the judgment and order dated 04.12.2003 passed by learned Single Judge directing re-instatement of the writ petitioner (respondent ) in service without payment of back wages. The reasons for which learned single Judge interfered with the order of dismissal from service was that the witnesses examined earlier were not produced for cross examination. Punishment was awarded by the Disciplinary Authority by taking into account the report submitted by the enquiry officer recording establishment of charges. The Division Bench concurred with the findings of the learned Single Judge.
7.Keeping in view the aforesaid position of law indicated in the aforesaid decisions, we are of the view that the course adopted in the two cases above, is to be followed. There shall not be any reinstatement but the proceedings shall continue from the stage where it stood before the alleged vulnerability surfaced."
(22) The aforesaid proposition of law was further reiterated in the case of Anant R. Kulkarni (Supra) in the following terms:-
"13. It is a settled legal proposition that, once the Court set aside an order of punishment on the ground that the enquiry was not properly conducted, the Court should not severely preclude the employer from holding the inquiry in accordance with law. It must remit the concerned case to the disciplinary authority, to conduct the enquiry from the point that it stood vitiated, and to conclude the same in accordance with law. However, resorting to such a course depends upon the gravity of delinquency involved. Thus, the court must examine the magnitude of misconduct alleged against the delinquent employee. It is in view of this that courts/tribunals, are not competent to quash the charge-sheet and related disciplinary proceedings, before the same are concluded, on the aforementioned grounds. (Vide: Managing Director, ECIL, Hyderabad etc.etc. v. B. Karunakar etc.etc. AIR 1994 SC 1074; Hiran Mayee Bhattacharyya v. Secretary, S.M. School for Girls & Ors., (2002) 10 SCC 293; U.P. State Spinning C. Ltd. v. R.S. Pandey & Anr., (2005) 8 SCC 264; and Union of India v. Y.S. Sandhu, Ex-Inspector AIR 2009 SC"
(23) In the case of Chairman Life Insurance Corporation Of India (Supra) the Hon'ble Supreme Court in paragraph no. 16 held as under:-
"It is a settled legal proposition, that once the Court sets aside an order of punishment, on the ground that the enquiry was not properly conducted, the Court cannot reinstate the employee. It must remit the concerned case to the disciplinary authority, for it to conduct the enquiry from the point that it stood vitiated, and conclude the same. (Vide: Managing Director, ECIL, Hyderabad etc.etc. v. B. Karunakar etc.etc. AIR 1994 SC 1074; Hiran Mayee Bhattacharyya v. Secretary, S.M. School for Girls & Ors., (2002) 10 SCC 293; U.P. State Spinning C. Ltd. v. R.S. Pandey & Anr., (2005) 8 SCC 264; and Union of India v. Y.S. Sandhu, Ex-Inspector AIR 2009 SC 161)."
(24) Yet in the case of State Bank Of India And Others (Supra) the following was observed:-
"30. In B. Karunakar case, the Constitution Bench examined the question as to what should be the order if the principle of natural justice has not been applied and the order of punishment stands vitiated on that account. The Court held that if the order of punishment stands vitiated, the proper relief is to direct reinstatement with liberty to the management to proceed with the inquiry, by placing the employee under suspension and continuing the inquiry from the stage of furnishing him with the report. The question of back wages and other benefits should invariably be left to be decided by the authority concerned according to law, after the culmination of the proceedings and depending upon the final outcome."
(25) Recently the Hon'ble Apex Court in Rajit Singh(Supra) held as under:-
3.1"It is further submitted that assuming that the Enquiry Proceedings were vitiated on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice, in that case also as per the settled proposition of law, the matter ought to have been remanded to the Enquiry Officer and the Disciplinary Authority to proceed further with the enquiry from the stage of violation of the principles of natural justice."
8."It appears from the order passed by the Tribunal that the Tribunal also observed that the enquiry proceedings were against the principles of natural justice in as much as the documents mentioned in the charge sheet were not at all supplied to the delinquent officer. As per the settled of law, in a case where it is found that the enquiry is not conducted properly and/or the same is in violation of the principles of natural justice, in that case, the Court cannot reinstate the employee as such and the matter is to be remanded to the Enquiry Officer/Disciplinary Authority to proceed further with the enquiry from the stage of violation of principles of natural justice is noticed and the enquiry has to be proceeded further after furnishing the necessary documents mentioned in the charge sheet, which are alleged to have not been given to the delinquent officer in the instant case."
(26) Yet in Prabhat Kumar(Supra) the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as under:-
7."This Court in a Constitution Bench judgment reported as ECIL v. B. Karunakar, (1993) 4 SCC 727 held that if the Court finds that furnishing of the enquiry report would have made a difference to the result, in such case it should set aside the order of punishment. Where the Court sets aside the order of punishment, the proper relief which should be granted is to direct reinstatement of the employee with liberty to the authority/management to proceed with the inquiry, by placing the employee under suspension and continuing the inquiry from the stage of furnishing him with the report. The question whether the employee would be entitled to back-wages and other benefits from the date of his dismissal to the date of his reinstatement if ultimately 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."
(27) More recently in S. Arichandran (Supra) the Hon'ble Apex Court while relying the judgment in Rajit Singh (Supra) and A. Masilamani (Supra) in paragraph no. 6.2 has observed as under:-
"Applying the law laid down by this Court in the aforesaid decisions to the facts of the case on hand and as the order of dismissal has been set aside on the ground that the same was in breach of principles of Natural Justice, the High Court ought to have remitted the case concerned to the Disciplinary Authority to conduct the inquiry from the point that it stood vitiated and to conclude the same after furnishing a copy of the Inquiry Report to the delinquent and to give opportunity to the delinquent to submit his comments on the Inquiry Officer's Report."
(28) Applying the principle of law laid down in the series of the judicial pronouncement as noticed above in the present facts of case, an irresistible conclusion stands drawn that for whatever reasons there had been technical defect in holding inquiry proceeding either by way of violation of principle of natural justice i.e. non holding of oral inquiry, denial of furnishing of relevant documents going into the root of the matter, denial of opportunity of cross examination of witnesses, non furnishing of inquiry report and also in flagrant violation of the statutory rules/regulations, then in the cases of setting aside of order of dismissal/removal/termination, the court of law should remit back the proceedings before the disciplinary authority enabling the inquiry officer/committee to conduct fresh disciplinary proceeding from the stage prior to the imposition of punishment and not as a matter of rule grant relief of reinstatement along with consequential benefits including arrears and current salary. It should be left open to the disciplinary authority to pass appropriate orders either to reinstate or place delinquent employee under suspension for the purpose of holding an inquiry and the payment of consequential benefits should be made subject to final out come of the inquiry proceedings.
(29) As far as the judgments relied upon by Sri H.N. Singh, who appears for the writ petitioner is concerned, the same are not applicable in the present facts as the judgment in Deepali Gundu Surwase (Supra) pertains to labour law wherein different principles of law applies. Similarly, the judgment in the case of Pradeep (Supra), does not deal with the facts which are relevant in the present case, as in the said case the Hon'ble Apex Court while exercising jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution of India granted the lump sum payment of back wages.
(30) Notably, the case of the writ petitioner before the learned Single Judge while assailing the termination order dated 24.07.2016 was that there was technical defect in holding departmental inquiry against him. The learned Single Judge in its judgment dated 27.05.2022 which is subject matter of challenge in present appeal, recorded a categorical findings that the departmental inquiry was conducted in ulter violation of principle of natural justice, accordingly in the opinion of the Court, the aforesaid judgments so relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellants which have been noticed above would squarely apply. A redeeming feature is that, the directions for conducting fresh inquiry has not been challenged by the writ petitioner.
(31) Accordingly, we are of the opinion that the judgment and the order of the learned Single Judge passed on 27.05.2022 in Writ- A No. 11458 of 2017 in so far as it quashes the order of the appellant dated 27.04.2016 terminating the service of the writ petitioner and the enquiry report dated 05.11.2015 needs no interference in the present intra-court appeal. However, the direction for the reinstatement of writ petitioner and payment of arrears and current salary w.e.f. 01.08.2022 along with interest is set aside. Since the learned Single Judge had granted liberty to the Appellant to initiate fresh enquiry, so question of reinstatement/or continuance of suspension is left open to the Appellants. We further provide that in case the appellant propose to conduct fresh inquiry, then the same may be concluded within three months from the date of production of certified copy of the order by either of the parties. The appellant is directed to pay subsistence allowances to the writ petitioner, arrears, if any, be also paid forthwith in accordance with law. The entitlement of arrears, current salary and all consequential benefits shall be subject to the final out come of the inquiry proceedings, if conducted.
(32) With the aforesaid observation, the present intra-court appeal is stands partly allowed.
Order Date :- 16.12.2022 Nisha