Doctrine of Approbate and Reprobate Barring Challenge to Conditional Reinstatement After Acceptance of Benefits

The appellant obtained employment with the Food Corporation of India (FCI) in 1988 under the Scheduled Tribe category. Following allegations that his caste certificate was manufactured, a departmental inquiry was initiated.

In 2003, the Sub-Divisional Officer (SDO) confirmed that the certificate was not issued by his office

The appellant was dismissed in 2005 but was later granted a fresh hearing by the Writ Court due to procedural unfairness

During the subsequent proceedings in 2014, the appellant chose not to contest the SDO’s finding regarding the invalidity of the original 1988 certificate. Instead, he submitted a fresh caste certificate dated 25.06.2011 and requested to resume his duties

The Disciplinary Authority issued an order on 08.07.2014 allowing him to resume work on the condition that the period from dismissal (2005) to the court order (2014) be treated as deemed suspension/leave without back wages

Having rejoined and accepted these terms, the appellant later filed a writ petition challenging the denial of back wages and the regularization of his service period

Whether the Disciplinary Authority had the power to impose conditions regarding back wages and service regularization when such consequences are not explicitly listed as "penalties" under Regulation 54 of the FCI (Staff) Regulations, 1971

Whether a litigant, having accepted the benefits of a conditional reinstatement order, can subsequently challenge the disadvantageous terms of that same order under the doctrine of approbate and reprobate

Regulation 54 of the FCI (Staff) Regulations, 1971, which enumerates minor and major penalties

Equitable doctrine of "Approbate and Reprobate" (or the doctrine of election), which dictates that a party cannot accept the benefits of an instrument while rejecting its burdens

A person cannot "blow hot and cold" by treating a transaction as valid to gain an advantage and then void to secure further advantage, as established in Shyam Telelink Ltd. v. Union of India [(2010) 10 SCC 165], Cauvery Coffee Traders v. Hornor Resources (International) Co. Ltd. [(2011) 10 SCC 420], and Rajasthan State Industrial Development and Investment Corp. v. Diamond Gem Development Corp. Ltd. [(2013) 5 SCC 470]

The reinstatement was not a result of the appellant being exonerated of the charges, but rather a "conditional" resumption of duty based on his own request and his submission of a second caste certificate

By failing to contest the SDO's report that the 1988 certificate was manufactured, the appellant effectively conceded the underlying misconduct

The order dated 08.07.2014 was a "composite" and "contingent" order; the permission to rejoin was inseparable from the conditions regarding back wages.

Applying the doctrine of approbate and reprobate, the Court held that since the appellant chose to rejoin service and avail himself of the benefits of the order (including salary fixation and continued employment), he was legally precluded from making a "volte-face" to challenge the accompanying service conditions

The Court further noted that had the authorities proceeded strictly under conduct regulations for the original fraud, the consequences would have been far more severe

The Court clarified that since this was a case of conditional acceptance rather than a formal imposition of penalty under the regulations, the appellant's reliance on technicalities regarding Regulation 54 was misplaced

The Court dismissed the appeal and the writ petition. The judgment of the Single Judge dismissing the writ petition was upheld