An employee cannot be deprived of legitimately earned salary if attending duty, subject to disciplinary rules.

The applicant, Mohammad Altaf Khan, was appointed as a Pump Operator in the Jal Shakti (PHE) Department in March 2020

He approached the Tribunal seeking to quash an impugned communication dated 20-01-2025 and sought a direction for the release of his salary, which had been withheld since May 2022

The respondents issued the impugned notice directing the applicant to explain why he served a legal notice while allegedly absconding from his duties

The applicant contended that the withholding of salary and the impugned notice were retaliatory measures following his legal notice to the department

1. Whether an employee can be restrained from serving a legal notice or representation upon the competent authority for the redressal of grievances

2. Whether the respondents are legally obligated to release the withheld salary if the employee has been performing his routine duties

The Tribunal applied the principle that a Controlling Officer has the duty and authority to ensure punctuality and proceed against unauthorized absence strictly "in accordance with law"

It upheld the fundamental administrative law principle that an employee cannot be restrained from seeking legal redressal through representations or notices

Further, the Tribunal applied the principle of "legitimately earned salary," establishing that an employer cannot deprive an employee of wages for periods where routine duties were actually performed

The Tribunal observed that while the department has the absolute power to initiate disciplinary action against an "absconding" employee, such proceedings must follow due process

It noted that the impugned order seemed to question the applicant’s right to serve a legal notice, which the Tribunal clarified is a protected right for any employee seeking grievance redressal

Regarding the withheld salary, the Tribunal noted the lack of an attendance certificate but reasoned that the right to salary is contingent upon the performance of duty

It balanced the department's right to conduct an inquiry into unauthorized absence with the applicant's right to earned wages, directing a factual determination of whether the applicant was "attending to his routine duty" during the claimed period

The Tribunal declined to stay the inquiry regarding the applicant’s alleged absence but mandated that any disciplinary action or inquiry initiated by the respondents must be conducted strictly in accordance with the law