The division judge bench of the Jharkhand High Court held that an employee cannot be deprived of back wages for the period during which he was illegally prevented from performing his duty.
Brief facts
The factual matrix of the case is that the Appellant-Bank was served with a charge memo, the departmental proceedings were initiated and the inquiry report was submitted and after that, the second show cause notice was also issued. The disciplinary authority imposed major punishment of (i) compulsory retirement under Regulations 4(h) of Bank of India Officer Employees (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1976, and (ii) reduction of one increment for three years without cumulative effect. The same was approved by the Appellate and the Revisional Authorities, therefore, aggrieved by this, the Respondent approached the writ court. The writ court remitted the matter back to the Departmental Authorities while holding that the punishment of compulsory retirement from service was disproportionate to the charge framed. Furthermore, the punishment was passed by the disciplinary authority which was under challenge in the writ petition. The Writ Court held that the period during which the respondent remained out of a job cannot be treated as the period not spent on duty. Therefore, the present appeal is filed by the Bank of India.
Contentions of the Appellant
The Appellant contended that by applying the rule of “no work no play”, the Respondent who didn’t perform his duty is not entitled to back wages. It was furthermore contended that considering the charges against the Respondent, the disciplinary authority has rightly denied back wages to the Respondent. Also, the period between the penalty of compulsory retirement and the date of reinstatement shall not be treated as a period spent on duty.
Observations of the court
The Hon’ble Court observed that an employee cannot be denied back wages for the time he was illegally kept from performing his duties. In the instant case, due to the order of compulsory retirement, he couldn’t work. Also, the writ court didn’t approve of the punishment of compulsory retirement.
The court relied upon the judgments titled M/s. Hindustan Tin Works Pvt. Ltd. v. The Employees of M/s Hindustan Tin Works Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. and Deepali Gundu Surwase v. Kranti Junior Adhyapak Mahavidyalaya.
Based on these considerations, the court was of the view that the decision of the writ court was just and proper.
The decision of the court
With the above direction, the court dismissed the Appeal.
Case title: The Bank of India Vs Arun Kumar Srivastava
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Acting Chief Justice Shree Chandrashekhar, and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Navneet Kumar
Case No.: L.P.A. No. 266 of 2023
Advocate for the Appellant: Mr. Rohit Ranjan Sinha, Advocate
Advocate for the Respondent: Mr. Utkarsh Krishna, Advocate
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
