Dismissal based on perverse findings and violation of natural justice warrants reinstatement with full back wages.

The Petitioner, a Sweeper with the Jharkhand Armed Police (JAP-8), was dismissed from service following a departmental inquiry

The charge alleged that on December 10, 2011, the Petitioner entered the mess in an intoxicated state, verbally abused his superior, Company Commander Edward Minj, and assaulted him, causing the Commander to fall and suffer a leg fracture

The Petitioner contended that the Commander was actually the one intoxicated and fell accidentally due to lose footing on wooden logs

The inquiry officer found the charges proved, leading to the Petitioner's dismissal on March 28, 2012

which was subsequently upheld by the Appellate Authority on February 21, 2013

Whether the disciplinary proceedings suffered from a violation of the principles of natural justice

Whether the findings of the inquiry officer and disciplinary authority were perverse or unsupported by evidence

Whether the order of dismissal was justified and if the case warranted a remand to the authorities after a lapse of 14 years

Whether the Petitioner is entitled to back wages and consequential benefits

The court relied on the limits of judicial review under Article 226 as defined in Union of India v. P. Gunasekaran, which prohibits re-appreciation of evidence unless the finding is based on "no evidence" or is "perverse"

It applied the principle of Natural Justice as an inbuilt statutory requirement established in Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India

and State of U.P. v. Saroj Kumar Sinha

Regarding perversity, it applied the definition from Arulvelu v. State, where a finding is perverse if it ignores relevant material or defies logic

On the issue of back wages, the court applied the exceptions to the "No Work No Pay" rule from Union of India v. K.V. Jankiraman

and Deepali Gundu Surwase v. Kranti Junior Adhyapak Mahavidyalaya, which hold that if an employee is illegally kept away from work, they are entitled to back wages

The Court found that the disciplinary authority failed to provide the Petitioner with the inquiry officer's findings or an opportunity to respond before imposing dismissal, constituting a gross violation of natural justice

Upon reviewing the evidence, the Court noted that the medical report only mentioned an "alcoholic smell" and "semi-unconsciousness" without confirming intoxication

and crucial eyewitnesses (Police 860 and Police 153) testified during cross-examination that the Commander fell because his leg got stuck in wood, not because of an assault by the Petitioner

The Court held that the inquiry officer's conclusion was "perverse" as it ignored this exculpatory evidence

Furthermore, the Court declined to remand the matter because 14 years had elapsed since the incident, and remitting it would cause undue mental trauma

Since the termination was found to be a "foisted false charge" and a result of the employer's wrongdoing, the Petitioner was deemed eligible for an exception to the "No Work No Pay" doctrine

The Court held that the Petitioner is entitled to reinstatement in service with continuity of service and full back wages from the date of dismissal

The Respondents were directed to treat the Petitioner as if he was never punished