Orissa High Court
Dr. Uttam Kumar Samanta vs Kiit University Represented By Its ... on 19 April, 2017
Author: I.Mahanty
Bench: I.Mahanty
HIGH COURT OF ORISSA,CUTTACK
WRIT APPEAL No.405 of 2014
In the matter of an application under Clause-10 of Letter Patent of the
Patna High Court read with Article 4 of Orissa High Court Rules, 1948.
-------
Dr. Uttam Kumar Samanta ......... Appellant
Versus
KIIT University,
represented by its Vice-Chancellor and
others ......... Respondents
For Appellant : M/s.Goutam Mukherjee, P.Mukherjee
A.C. Panda, S.Priyadarsini,
S.Mishra, S.D.Ray, S.Sahoo and
S.Biswal
For Respondents : Mr.R.K.Rath, Sr. Adv
M/s.J.S.Mishra and S.Mishra,
(For Respondent Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4 and 8)
Mr.J.K.Mishra, Sr. Adv
(For Respondent No.5)
Mr.A.K.Bose, ASG
Mr.Bibekananda Nayak, CGC
(For Respondent No. 7)
Additional Government Advocate
(For Respondent No.6)
.........
PRESENT :
THE HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE I.MAHANTY
AND
THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE D.P.CHOUDHURY
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date of judgment:19.04.2017
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dr. D.P.Choudhury, J. Challenge has been made to the order dated
29.9.2014 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No.17171 of
2011.
-2-
FACTS
2. The factual matrix leading to the case of the appellant, in this
appeal, is that the appellant is a highly qualified and reputed professor
in the stream of Biotechnology employed in United States of America.
On being offered a post at KIIT University, he joined as Associate
Professor, KIIT School of Biotechnology on terms and conditions as
mentioned in the offer of appointment. It is profitable to mention that on
29.5.2010, the appellant was issued with the appointment letter in the
pay band of Rs.15,600/- to Rs.39,100/- with grade pay of Rs.7,000/-
and gross salary of Rs.46,089/-. On 28.7.2010, the appellant joined the
post and continued as a probationer as a part of the condition of the
service. While continuing as a probationer, the appellant found slow
progress in the development activities and further noticed regarding
unethical evaluation of the answer papers of the students of the
University. In spite of his protest to stop such unhealthy management,
there became strain relationship between the appellant and the
respondent-University.
3. Be it stated that the appellant could come to know by receiving
copies of the documents under the Right to Information Act of the
University, instead of going ahead with the strong objection to the
unhealthy atmosphere of the University pointed out by the appellant,
constituted an Enquiry Committee on 3.6.2011 to conduct an enquiry
against the appellant and gave opinion without affording any
opportunity of being heard to the appellant to the effect that his
-3-
conduct is highly unbecoming of a responsible faculty member of the
University. On 20.6.2011, to the utter surprise of the appellant, a letter
of termination was issued to him and on 21.6.2011, the appellant
submitted a representation protesting his termination as illegal,
arbitrary and tainted with mala fide and sheer violation of principles of
natural justice. On 23.6.2011, the appellant sought for some documents
and information from the University vide Annexure-10 to the writ
petition. Since the authorities did not decide the representation of the
appellant, he was compelled to file W.P.(C) No.17171 of 2011, which
was disposed of by the learned Single Judge of this Court on 29.9.2014
by quashing the order of termination and consequently he was directed
to reinstate with continuity of service from the date of termination and
pay only 60% of back wages since the appellant has not worked all
those periods.
4. On the other hand, the case of the respondent-University is
that the University being a Deemed University having autonomous
status and KIIT School of Bio-Technology being an institution, a part of
such University, is not amenable to the writ jurisdiction of this Court. It
is the further case of the University that the appellant was on probation
being under the service contract. Before completion of the probation
period, he was terminated for which no notice was necessary to be
served while conducting In-house Enquiry. When the In-house
Committee found him guilty, he was issued with the termination order.
-4-
5. The respondent-University Grants Commission (UGC) has
also placed its case stating that as per Section 3 of the University Grants
Commission Act, 1956, the KIIT has been recognized as a Deemed
University under Section 2(a) of the said Act. It is stated by this
respondent that the Central Government may, on advise of the
Commission, declare any individual institution for higher education other
than University under the UGC Act and for promotion and co-ordination
of University, as it thinks fit. In the impugned order, learned Single
Judge, after taking the pleadings of both parties into consideration,
framed the following three questions for answer:
"i. Whether the opposite party no.1 University is a
"State" and or "Other Authority" under Article 12 of
the Constitution of India and is thus amenable to this
Court?
ii. Whether the order of termination vide Annexure-4
required an enquiry with opportunity of showing
cause to the victim before the order of termination
was passed and as such Annexure-4 suffers on
account of violation of principle of natural justice?
iii. Whether the order of termination vide Annexure-1
attached any stigma, affecting all through the life of
the petitioner and for affecting Fundamental Right of
a person, a writ can be enforceable under Article 226
of the Constitution of India?"
6. While answering Point No.i, the learned Single Judge
observed that the University being a creature of a statute and since
performing public duty comes well within the meaning of "State" under
Article 12 of the Constitution of India and, therefore, they are amenable
to the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Similarly, learned Single Judge, while answering Point No.ii, hold that
-5-
the order of termination/dismissal passed in the case of appellant is
unsustainable due to non-compliance of principles of natural justice.
While answering Point No.iii, learned Single Judge answered in
affirmative by reiterating that the termination order vide Annexure-4 to
the writ petition cannot be sustained due to non-compliance of principles
of natural justice and consequently, learned Single Judge set aside the
order of termination and directed for reinstatement of the appellant and
further held that his period of termination being continuous service, he
should be paid 60% back wages.
7. Against the order of the learned Single Judge, a review
petition bearing RVWPET No.172 of 2014 was filed, but the same was
later on dismissed as withdrawn.
8. The appellant only challenges the order of the learned Single
Judge with regard to the direction for payment of 60% back wages as he
was entitled to receive 100% back wages when order of termination was
declared as illegal.
9. The University Grants Commission filed cross-objection
stating therein that under UGC (Minimum Qualifications for Appointment
of Teachers and other Academic Staff in Universities and Colleges and
Measures for the Maintenance of Standards in Higher Education)
Regulation, 2010, it has been clearly stated in Clause 11.0 about the
period of probation and confirmation. Except bringing such provisions to
the knowledge of the Court, the UGC has nothing to say either in the
writ petition or in the writ appeal.
-6-
10. Mr.Mukherjee, learned counsel for the appellant contended
that observation and the orders of the Hon'ble Supreme Court has not
been properly appreciated by the learned Single Judge while refusing to
grant 100% back wages.
11. Mr.Mukherjee, learned counsel for the appellant further
submitted that when the University has illegally taken away the right of
the appellant contrary to the relevant laws and deprive him from his
earnings, the appellant should be restored to his job in the event of
quashing of his termination with full back wages. Had the appellant
continued in service, he could have earned his full salary to maintain his
livelihood, but because of the illegal termination order, his continuity in
service comes to a halt and the learned Single Judge, considering this
aspect, should have allowed full back wages. He further submitted that
the University has discriminated the appellant while giving appointment
to one Dr.M.Suar, who is academically junior to the appellant as
professor whereas the appellant was given a post of Associate Professor.
On this aspect being appreciated by the learned Single Judge, the
appellant could have been awarded 100% back wages while quashing
the termination order issued against him. He relied upon the decision
reported in the case of Bhuvnesh Kumar Dwivedi -V- M/s.Hindalco
Industries Ltd; AIR 2014 SC 2258, where the Hon'ble Supreme Court
has been pleased to award full back wages to the appellant therein from
the date of termination from service till the date of his reinstatement
-7-
and other consequential benefits which accrued to him by virtue of his
employment with the respondent-company.
12. Mr.Mukherjee, learned counsel for the appellant further cited
the decision in the case of Deepali Gundu Surwase -V- Kranti Junior
Adhyapak Mahavidyalaya (D.ED.) and Others; (2013) 10 SCC 324
where the Hon'ble Supreme Court directed the management to pay full
back wages to the appellant failing which it shall have to pay interest at
the rate of 9% per annum. In support of his submission, he relies on the
decisions in the case of Pradip Kumar -V- Union of India and
others; (2012) 13 SCC 182, Dipti Prakash Banerjee -V-
Satyendra Nath Bose National Centre for Basic Sciences,
Callcutta and others; AIR 1999 SC 983, V.P.Ahuja -V- State of
Punjab and Others; AIR 2000 SC 1080 and Tapas Kumar Paul -V-
BSNL & another; Civil Appeal No.4980 of 2014 (Arising out of
SLP (C) No.15357 of 2013).
13. While on the above decisions, Mr.Mukherjee contended that
the termination of the appellant being declared as illegal by not following
the principles of natural justice, the appellant should be allowed full back
wages with interest thereon. So, the judgment of the learned Single
Judge for not giving full back wages is illegal and improper and liable to
be interfered with. He submitted that at paragraph-27 of the judgment,
the learned Single Judge, while quashing the impugned termination
order, has observed that the petitioner be deemed to be continuing in
service for the entire period, i.e, with effect from 28.7.2011, the date of
-8-
his one year probation being completed on 27.7.2011 should have been
clarified in the impugned judgment and the same should be clarified in
this writ appeal. Unless the impugned judgment/order regarding 60%
back wages is modified to be payable with 100% back wages along with
consequential benefits, i.e, regularization of the appellant's service after
completion of the probation period and promotion and equities, the
appellant will suffer from irreparable loss and injury. So, he submitted to
modify the order of the learned Single Judge by enhancing the 60%
back wages to 100% back wages with consequential benefits and the
same should be paid with interest at the rate of 12% per annum.
14. Mr.R.K.Rath, learned Senior Advocate for the University
submitted that the University is completely an independent and
autonomous and is not amenable to writ jurisdiction. On the other hand,
the word "State" in Article 12 of the Constitution of India does not
include the respondents-University. Since the University is not getting
any aid or assistance from the Central Government or State
Government, it cannot come under Article 12 of the Constitution of
India. He further contended that the learned Single Judge has not
considered this plea with proper perspective. In support of his
contention, he cited decisions in the case of Pradip Kumar Biswas -V-
Indian Institute of Chemical Biology and others; (2002) 5 SCC
111, Zee Film Industries Limited and another -V- Union of India
and others; (2005) 4 SCC 649 and a decision of this Court in the case
-9-
of Dibakar Mohapatra -V- Xavier Institute of Management
(W.P.(C) No.5614 of 2008).
15. Mr.Rath, learned Senior Advocate for the KIIT University
further submitted that when the appellant was on probation, his service
was not regular and in case of one temporary employee, the In-house
Enquiry can be conducted without any notice to the concerned
employee. Since there is unbecoming conduct on the part of the faculty
member and it was found to be true after due enquiry, there is no
illegality in the finding of the Committee. As per conditions of service of
the appellant, an employee in probation can be terminated without any
notice to the employee concerned. In view of the service of the
appellant being a temporary one, particularly when he is in probation,
there is no illegality in terminating him from his service. Of course,
learned Single Jude has failed to appreciate this aspect and illegally set
aside the order of termination.
16. He further asserted that the learned Single Judge has
rightly not allowed the full back wages because the appellant was on
probation and there is truthfulness in the charge made against him. So,
the claim of the appellant for full back wages is misconceived and
against principles of law. In this regard, he supports the judgment
passed by the learned Single Judge and prays to reject the writ appeal.
17. Mr.J.K.Mishra, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the
UGC submitted that there is provision under the UGC Regulation, 2010
that the faculty member can be appointed on probation for a period of
- 10 -
one year and the probation period can be extended for a maximum
period of another one year in case of satisfactory performance. He
further submitted that under Clause 11.3, the confirmation of an
incumbent has to be issued by the institution within 45 days of
completion of probationary period after due process of verification of
satisfactory performance. The probation and confirmation rules are
applicable at the initial stage of the recruitment issued from time to
time.
18. POINT FOR DETERMINATION
Since the respondent-KIIT has not filed any cross-appeal
and cross-objection and the UGC has also not challenged the judgment
passed by the learned Single Judge in specific manner except filing
cross-objection showing the rule, the dispute in this writ appeal narrows
down to the point for determination whether the appellant is entitled to
full back wages or 60% back wages, as granted by the learned Single
Judge.
19. DISCUSSION
The appellant had filed a review petition to make review of
the order of the learned Single Judge but subsequently, he has
withdrawn the same and the learned Single Judge allowed the
withdrawal of the review petition after passing order for correction of
some typographical error in the judgement.
20. Paragraphs-26 and 27 of the impugned judgment passed by
the learned Single Judge is placed below for better appreciation:
- 11 -
"26.Now coming to answer on point no.iii, I find that
the services of the petitioner was terminated by
order dated 20.6.2011 as appearing at Annexure-4.
Though the said order did not attach any stigma but,
while answering to the pleadings of the petitioner the
opposite party nos.1 to 4 in their counter affidavit
submitted that before the order of termination vide
Annexure-1 was passed the case of the petitioner
was being examined by an in-house Enquiry
Committee, who have an unanimous opinion that the
conduct of Dr.Uttam Kumar Samanta, the petitioner
has not been satisfactory and is highly unbecoming
of a responsible faculty member of the university as
clearly appearing at Annexure-C/1. It is based on
such report his service was terminated vide
Annexure-4. Thus, in my considered opinion even
though the order of termination did not attach any
stigma yet in view of finding of the Enquiry
Committee as appearing at Annexure-C/1 with the
strengthening of Right to Information Act and
transparency in the actions the future of the
petitioner is very much likely to be jeopardized. As
such after coming to the above finding which finding
was arrived at by an internal enquiry committee held
behind the back of the petitioner, law minimum
requires compliance of natural justice by at least
affording an opportunity to the petitioner before
issuing the terminal order vide Annexure-4 for this
the termination order vide Annexure-4 cannot be
sustained in the eye of law. My such view also gets
support of Hon'bl Apex Court decision vide AIR 2000
SC 1080 where in para-7, the Hon'ble Apex Court
held that order of termination attaching stigma needs
compulsory compliance of principles of natural
justice. Under the circumstances, I answer point
no.iii also in favour of the petitioner and against the
opposite parties.
27. In view of my findings on point no.i vide
paragraphs 22, 23 and 24, my findings on point no.ii
at para-25 and my findings on point no.iii at para-26
while allowing the writ petition, I set aside the
impugned orders at Annexure-4 of the writ petition
as well as the consequential order as appearing at
Annexure-6 of the writ petition, I further declare that
the petitioner whose services has been taken away
by order under Annexur-4 be deemed to be
continuing in service for the entire period but since
- 12 -
he has not worked for all these period he may be
paid 60% back wages.
Xxx xxx xxx xxx"
21. From the aforesaid observations, it is clear that the order of
termination was illegal because of violation of the principles of natural
justice and the appellant is deemed to be continued in service for the
entire period. While awarding 60% of back wages for the entire period,
the appellant was terminated from service but no reasons has been
assigned in the impugned judgment as to why the full back wages has
not been granted.
22. It is reported in the case of Deepali Gundu Surwase -V-
Kranti Junior Adhyapak Mahavidyalaya (D.ED.) & others; (2013)
10 SCC 324 where Their Lordships at paragraph 23 has observed in the
following manner:
23. A somewhat similar issue was considered by a
three Judge Bench in Hindustan Tin Works Pvt. Ltd.
v. Employees of Hindustan Tin Works Pvt. Ltd
(1979) 2 SCC 80 in the context of termination of
services of 56 employees by way of retrenchment due
to alleged non-availability of the raw material
necessary for utilization of full installed capacity by the
petitioner. The dispute raised by the employees
resulted in award of reinstatement with full back
wages. This Court examined the issue at length and
held:
"xxx xxx xxx
The relief of reinstatement with continuity of service
can be granted where termination of service is found
to be invalid. It would mean that the employer has
taken away illegally the right to work of the workman
contrary to the relevant law or in breach of contract
and simultaneously deprived the workman of his
earnings. If thus the employer is found to be in the
wrong as a result of which the workman is directed to
be reinstated, the employer could not shirk his
responsibility of paying the wages which the workman
- 13 -
has been deprived of by the illegal or invalid action of
the employer.
Xxx xxx xxx
Ordinarily, therefore, a workman whose service has
been illegally terminated would be entitled to full back
wages except to the extent he was gainfully employed
during the enforced idleness. That is the normal rule.
Any other view would be a premium on the
unwarranted litigative activity of the employer. If the
employer terminates the service illegally and the
termination is motivated as in this case viz. to resist
the workmen's demand for revision of wages, the
termination may well amount to unfair labour practice.
In such circumstances reinstatement being the normal
rule, it should be followed with full back wages.
Xxx xxx xxx
In the very nature of things there cannot be a strait-
jacket formula for awarding relief of back wages. All
relevant considerations will enter the verdict. More or
less, it would be a motion addressed to the discretion
of the Tribunal. Full back wages would be the normal
rule and the party objecting to it must establish the
circumstances necessitating departure.
Xxx xxx xxx
Further, Their Lordships at paragraphs-29 and 31 of the said
judgment have observed as follows:
"29. In Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan v. S. C.
Sharma (2005) 2 SCC 363, the Court found that the
services of the respondent had been terminated under
Rule 19(ii) of the Central Civil Services (Classification,
Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 on the charge that he
was absconding from duty. The Central Administrative
Tribunal held that no material was available with the
disciplinary authority which could justify invoking of
Rule 19(ii) and the order of dismissal could not have
been passed without holding regular inquiry in
accordance with the procedure prescribed under the
Rules. The Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana
High Court did not accept the appellants' contention
that invoking of Rule 19(ii) was justified merely
because the respondent did not respond to the notices
- 14 -
issued to him and did not offer any explanation for his
willful absence from duty for more than two years.
The High Court agreed with the Tribunal and
dismissed the writ petition. The High Court further
held that even though the respondent-employee had
not pleaded or produced any evidence that after
dismissal from service, he was not gainfully employed,
back wages cannot be denied to him. This Court relied
upon some of the earlier judgments and held that in
view of the respondent's failure to discharge the initial
burden to show that he was not gainfully employed,
there was ample justification to deny him back wages,
more so because he had absconded from duty for a
long period of two years."
Xxx xxx xxx
31. In U.P. State Brassware Corporation Ltd. v.
Uday Narain Pandey (2006) 1 SCC 479, the two
Judge Bench observed:
"No precise formula can be laid down as to under what
circumstances payment of entire back wages should
be allowed. Indisputably, it depends upon the facts
and circumstances of each case. It would, however,
not be correct to contend that it is automatic. It
should not be granted mechanically only because on
technical grounds or otherwise an order of termination
is found to be in contravention of the provisions of
Section 6-N of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act."
Further, Their Lordship at paragraph-37 of the said
judgment has observed as follows:
"37. xxx xxx xxx
Coming back to back wages, even if the court finds it
necessary to award back wages, the question will be
whether back wages should be awarded fully or only
partially (and if so the percentage). That depends upon
the facts and circumstances of each case. Any income
received by the employee during the relevant period on
account of alternative employment or business is a
relevant factor to be taken note of while awarding back
wages, in addition to the several factors mentioned in
Rudhan Singh and Uday Narain Pandey. Therefore, it is
- 15 -
necessary for the employee to plead that he was not
gainfully employed from the date of his termination.
While an employee cannot be asked to prove the
negative, he has to at least assert on oath that he was
neither employed nor engaged in any gainful business
or venture and that he did not have any income. Then
the burden will shift to the employer.
Xxx xxx xxx"
Finally, Their Lordship at paragraph-38 have observed as follows:
"38. The propositions which can be culled out from the
aforementioned judgments are:
i) In cases of wrongful termination of service,
reinstatement with continuity of service and back
wages is the normal rule.
ii) The aforesaid rule is subject to the rider that while
deciding the issue of back wages, the adjudicating
authority or the Court may take into consideration the
length of service of the employee/workman, the nature
of misconduct, if any, found proved against the
employee/workman, the financial condition of the
employer and similar other factors.
iii) Ordinarily, an employee or workman whose services
are terminated and who is desirous of getting back
wages is required to either plead or at least make a
statement before the adjudicating authority or the
Court of first instance that he/she was not gainfully
employed or was employed on lesser wages. If the
employer wants to avoid payment of full back wages,
then it has to plead and also lead cogent evidence to
prove that the employee/workman was gainfully
employed and was getting wages equal to the wages
he/she was drawing prior to the termination of service.
This is so because it is settled law that the burden of
proof of the existence of a particular fact lies on the
person who makes a positive averments about its
existence. It is always easier to prove a positive fact
than to prove a negative fact. Therefore, once the
employee shows that he was not employed, the onus
lies on the employer to specifically plead and prove that
the employee was gainfully employed and was getting
the same or substantially similar emoluments.
- 16 -
iv) The cases in which the Labour Court/Industrial
Tribunal exercises power under Section 11-A of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and finds that even
though the enquiry held against the
employee/workman is consistent with the rules of
natural justice and / or certified standing orders, if any,
but holds that the punishment was disproportionate to
the misconduct found proved, then it will have the
discretion not to award full back wages. However, if the
Labour Court/Industrial Tribunal finds that the
employee or workman is not at all guilty of any
misconduct or that the employer had foisted a false
charge, then there will be ample justification for award
of full back wages.
v) The cases in which the competent Court or Tribunal
finds that the employer has acted in gross violation of
the statutory provisions and/or the principles of natural
justice or is guilty of victimizing the employee or
workman, then the concerned Court or Tribunal will be
fully justified in directing payment of full back wages.
In such cases, the superior Courts should not exercise
power under Article 226 or 136 of the Constitution and
interfere with the award passed by the Labour Court,
etc., merely because there is a possibility of forming a
different opinion on the entitlement of the
employee/workman to get full back wages or the
employer's obligation to pay the same. The Courts must
always be kept in view that in the cases of wrongful /
illegal termination of service, the wrongdoer is the
employer and sufferer is the employee/workman and
there is no justification to give premium to the
employer of his wrongdoings by relieving him of the
burden to pay to the employee/workman his dues in
the form of full back wages.
vi) In a number of cases, the superior Courts have
interfered with the award of the primary adjudicatory
authority on the premise that finalization of litigation
has taken long time ignoring that in majority of cases
the parties are not responsible for such delays. Lack of
infrastructure and manpower is the principal cause for
delay in the disposal of cases. For this the litigants
cannot be blamed or penalised. It would amount to
grave injustice to an employee or workman if he is
denied back wages simply because there is long lapse
of time between the termination of his service and
finality given to the order of reinstatement. The Courts
should bear in mind that in most of these cases, the
- 17 -
employer is in an advantageous position vis-à-vis the
employee or workman. He can avail the services of best
legal brain for prolonging the agony of the sufferer, i.e.,
the employee or workman, who can ill afford the luxury
of spending money on a lawyer with certain amount of
fame. Therefore, in such cases it would be prudent to
adopt the course suggested in Hindustan Tin Works
Private Limited v. Employees of Hindustan Tin Works
Private Limited (supra).
vii) The observation made in J.K. Synthetics Ltd. v.
K.P. Agrawal (2007) 2 SCC 433 that on
reinstatement the employee/workman cannot claim
continuity of service as of right is contrary to the ratio
of the judgments of three Judge Benches referred to
hereinabove and cannot be treated as good law. This
part of the judgment is also against the very concept of
reinstatement of an employee/workman."
23. With due regard to the aforesaid decision, in the instant
case, although the learned Single Judge has been pleased to find out
that due to violation of principles of natural justice, the termination is
illegal but no reason has been assigned as to why the 60% back wages
would be awarded. Also, the petitioner has not placed his case that
during termination period, he was sitting idle or not employed elsewhere
to earn money because in the aforesaid decision, it is clear that the
employee, while placing the case for back wages, has to plead the case
that he was not engaged in any gainful business or during that period he
had no income, after discharging such burden, the burden shifts upon
the employer. It is also clear from the aforesaid decision that there is no
straight jacket formula to award the full back wages which is normal
rule. When the appellant has neither pleaded the case before the
learned Single Judge to discharge his onus as to any alternative
employment or the business during his interregnum period, i.e, after the
- 18 -
order of termination passed and till he is reinstated, the claim of full
back wages cannot be automatic.
25. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that since the
termination is illegal and he is deemed to be continued in service, he
should be paid full back wages. There is nothing contended by the
learned counsel for the appellant or pleaded in conformity with the
requirements of law as propounded by in the case of Deepali Gundu
Surwase (Supra) to discharge onus by the appellant to claim full back
wages. Even if the leaned Single Judge has awarded 60% back wages
without assigning any reason, we are of the view that the same has
been passed by keeping in view the illegality committed by the
University for awarding punishment of termination without observing the
principles of natural justice.
26. Apart from this, in the objection filed on behalf of the
University to the Misc. Case No.637 of 2014 arising out of this Writ
Appeal, it appears that the University has already paid the back wages
to the appellant as per the order passed by the learned Single Judge.
27. When the appellant has already got the back wages
pursuant to the judgment of the learned Single Judge, he cannot file
appeal being a fence sitter challenging the back wages already received.
There is nothing found from the side of the appellant that he has
received the same with protest as there is no any objection filed.
- 19 -
28. So, we do not find any infirmity with the impugned
judgment passed by the learned Single Judge. Hence, we confirm the
same and accordingly, the Writ Appeal being devoid of merit stands
dismissed.
....................................
Dr.D.P.Choudhury,J.
I. Mahanty, J.I agree.
...................................
I.Mahanty,J Orissa High Court, Cuttack Dated the 19th Day of April, 2017/B.Nayak,