Facts
The applicant, appointed as a Technician in 2005, was dismissed from service on 27.11.2014 for alleged involvement in job racketing
Source reference: p.2He challenged this dismissal in OA 170/2015, where the Tribunal set aside the dismissal order on 08.11.2016, directing a fresh enquiry as per rules, due to procedural infirmity regarding the furnishing of the enquiry report
Source reference: p.2, p.4Following this, the applicant requested payment of salary from 27.11.2014, which was not considered
Source reference: p.2A new dismissal order was issued on 05.05.2017
Source reference: p.2Aggrieved by the non-payment of salary for the period 27.11.2014 to 05.05.2017, the applicant filed OA 1056/2017, which was disposed of on 17.07.2017, permitting him to make a representation for salary payment
Source reference: p.2-3His representation dated 24.07.2017 was rejected by the respondents via order dated 20/21.09.2017
Source reference: p.3The present OA was filed challenging this rejection and seeking payment of wages
Source reference: p.1, p.3The respondents contended that the fresh enquiry, mandated by the Tribunal, also resulted in the applicant's dismissal with the same penalty
Source reference: p.5Issues
Whether the applicant is entitled to payment of wages for the period from 27.11.2014 to 05.05.2017, when an earlier dismissal order was set aside on procedural grounds and a fresh enquiry subsequently resulted in another dismissal
Source reference: p.2-3, p.5-6Whether the present OA is maintainable given that earlier OA proceedings are referenced
Source reference: p.3Law Applied
The court primarily applied the principle extracted from the Hon'ble Supreme Court case of Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Coal India Ltd v. Ananta Saha (2011) 5 SCC 142, which holds that mere quashing of punishment on procedural grounds does not automatically entitle an employee to reinstatement or back wages
Source reference: p.4-5This principle dictates that back wages are generally held in abeyance and considered only after a fresh inquiry attains finality, and are contingent upon the employee being exonerated or reinstated
Source reference: p.5Reasoning
The court noted that the initial dismissal in OA 170/2015 was set aside due to a procedural infirmity, specifically the non-furnishing of the enquiry report, and the authorities were directed to proceed from the stage of the enquiry report submission and complete the process
Source reference: p.4Following this directive, the respondents conducted a fresh inquiry which again resulted in the applicant's dismissal with the same penalty
Source reference: p.5Applying the principle from Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Coal India Ltd v. Ananta Saha, the Tribunal reasoned that back wages are not automatically granted when a punishment is quashed on procedural grounds
Source reference: p.4-5Since the fresh inquiry concluded with the confirmation of the dismissal, and the applicant was neither exonerated nor reinstated, his claim for back wages was not justified
Source reference: p.5-6The punishment passed in the fresh inquiry was the same as the earlier one
Source reference: p.5Holding
The Tribunal dismissed the OA
It concluded that the applicant failed to make a case for the relief prayed for, as the question of back wages remains open until the final conclusion of the disciplinary proceedings. Since the subsequent inquiry also resulted in his dismissal, confirming the punishment, there was no entitlement to back wages
Source reference: p.5-6Original Court PDF
R.RajaselvasekaranVs.Union of India rep by, Director, National Institute for Research in Tuberculosis, Indian Council of Medical Research [OA/310/01527/2018; Dated: 11th February 2026]
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in