Full back wages are payable where termination is set aside for gross violation of natural justice.

The petitioner, an Assistant Development Officer at BIADA, was compulsorily retired on 29.09.2007 following a departmental proceeding where 5 of 13 charges were proved.

This order was quashed by the High Court in CWJC No. 16950 of 2007 on 05.05.2009 due to procedural irregularities, and the petitioner was reinstated.

Upon reinstatement, the petitioner was again suspended on 30.06.2009 for a fresh inquiry.

In the second proceeding, only one charge (No. 11) was proved, resulting in a minor punishment of 'censure' and a direction that no wages beyond subsistence allowance be paid for the suspension period.

The petitioner challenged the denial of back wages for the period of his initial compulsory retirement (October 2007 to 19.06.2009).

Whether the petitioner is entitled to full back wages for the period he remained out of service due to an illegal order of compulsory retirement that was subsequently set aside.

Whether the respondents can deny full salary for the period of compulsory retirement when the subsequent de novo inquiry resulted only in a minor punishment.

The Court primarily relied on the precedent set by the Supreme Court in *Deepali Gundu Surwase v. Kranti Junior Adhyapak Mahavidyalaya*, (2013) 10 SCC 324, which establishes that in cases of wrongful or illegal termination where the employer acted in violation of statutory provisions or natural justice, the host court is justified in awarding full back wages.

It distinguished the respondents' reliance on *The Chairman, BIADA vs. Arvind Kumar Singh*, 2017 (1) PLJR 479, noting it inapplicable to the specific facts of this case.

The Court observed that the initial order of compulsory retirement (29.09.2007) was set aside because it was passed in "gross violation" of natural justice—specifically, no Presenting Officer was appointed, and no oral or documentary evidence was led.

Applying the *Deepali Gundu Surwase* doctrine, the Court reasoned that since the employer was the "wrongdoer" by conducting a flawed proceeding, the employee should not suffer the financial burden of the illegal removal.

Furthermore, the Court noted that the subsequent fresh inquiry only resulted in a 'censure' (a minor punishment), which did not justify the deprivation of back wages for the period the petitioner was forced out of service by the previously quashed order.

The writ application was allowed, and the respondents were directed to pay the difference in arrears of salary after deducting any subsistence allowance already paid within three months.