Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2
PETITIONER:
SUB-DIVISIONAL INSPECTOR (POSTAL) & ORS.
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
K.K. PAVITHERAN
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 30/09/1996
BENCH:
K. RAMASWAMY, G.B. PATTANAIK
ACT:
HEADNOTE:
JUDGMENT:
O R D E R
Delay condoned.
Leave granted
Heard learned counsel on both sides.
The respondent while in service as Extra-Departmental
Agent was charge-sheeted, for misconduct of temporary
absence from duty, under Rule 8 of the P & T Extra
Departmental Agents (Conduct and Services) Rules, 1964 on
June 6, 1985. By order dated March 31,1986, the enquiry was
cancelled and fresh enquiry was conducted. Later, on
conclusion of the departmental enquiry proceedings, by order
dated July 9, 1990, the respondent was removed from service.
He filed an application in the Tribunal. By order dated May
28, 1992, the Tribunal remitted the matter for
reconsideration on the nature of punishment. That order was
unsuccessfully challenged in this Court and had become
final. Subsequently, when the order of removal was passed
again, it was challenged in the Tribunal. The Tribunal by
order dated September 4, 1993 quashed the proceedings and
directed reconsideration of the quantum of punishment on the
basis of amended rules. Again, it was challenged in the
special leave petition before this Court which was
dismissed. Consequently, the respondent was reinstated. He
again filed an application. In the impugned order dated
December 5, 1995 made in O.A. No.787/94, the Tribunal has
directed payment of back-wages. Thus, these appeals by
special leave.
This Court in Rajasthan State Road Transport
Corporation vs. Bhagyo Mal & Ors. [194 supp.(l) SCC 573]
held that while the High Court had found that the
respondent-employee deserved punishment on account of his
misconduct, and awarded lesser punishment, it is not liable
to grant back-wages particularly when the Tribunal had
converted the order of dismissal into stoppage of two
increments with cumulative effect. Therefore, the order of
the High Court was set aside to that effect. It is now
settled law that imposition of punishment is in the
discretion of the disciplinary authority. But the authority
is expected to exercise the discretion properly taking into
consideration all the relevant facts and circumstances. In
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2
this case, the punishment of removal was found to be not
justified for the reason that the respondent was temporarily
absent from duty. But the order of dismissal having been
converted into one of reinstatement with lesser punishment,
the question arises whether the respondent is entitled to
back-wages? The Tribunal was not right in directing payment
of back-wages for the reason that the respondent was found
to be responsible for misconduct though lesser punishment
was imposed. Under these circumstances and following the
above judgment, we hold that the respondent is not entitled
to back wages.
The appeals are accordingly allowed. No costs.