Period of dismissal set aside on merits must be treated as duty with full pay and allowances.

The applicant, an employee of the Defence Accounts Department, was dismissed from service on 17.05.2017.

He challenged this in O.A. No. 425/2018, where the Tribunal set aside the dismissal, terming it "shockingly disproportionate," and directed reinstatement with liberty to the Disciplinary Authority (DA) to impose a lesser punishment

The Hon’ble Gauhati High Court upheld this order on 09.04.2021

Consequently, the respondents issued a speaking order on 21.04.2021 reinstating the applicant but imposing a major penalty of "reduction by two stages for two years" and treating the intervening dismissal period (29.05.2017 to 29.04.2021) as "not spent on duty," granting only 50% pay and allowances under FR 54(A)

The applicant challenged these conditions, specifically seeking full pay and regularisation of the service period, citing the case of a similarly situated co-accused, Ram Vinay Sharma, who received full benefits after a similar Tribunal order

1. Whether the respondent authorities were justified in treating the period of dismissal as "not spent on duty" and restricting pay to 50% when the dismissal was set aside by the Court

2. Whether the applicant is entitled to the same benefits (full pay and allowances) as granted to a similarly situated co-accused in the same transaction

Fundamental Rule (FR) 54(A), which governs the pay and allowances of a government servant on reinstatement after an order of dismissal, removal, or compulsory retirement is set aside by a court of law

Principle of Parity in service jurisprudence, ensuring that similarly situated employees (co-accused) facing similar charges are not treated with discrimination regarding consequential benefits

The court also adhered to the doctrine of judicial finality, emphasizing that directions to consider a "lesser punishment" do not automatically permit the deprivation of service continuity or full back wages if the original dismissal is quashed on merits or found "shockingly disproportionate"

The Tribunal noted that the applicant’s original dismissal was quashed because the charges (lack of IT knowledge) did not constitute "grave misconduct" and the penalty was "conscience-shocking"

Although the DA imposed a lesser penalty upon reinstatement, it wrongly categorized the reinstatement as "not fully exonerated on merit" to deny full pay under FR 54(A)

The Tribunal compared the applicant’s case to that of Shri Ram Vinay Sharma, a co-accused involved in the same transaction. In Sharma’s case (O.A. No. 191/2019), the respondents had eventually treated the dismissal period as "duty for all purposes" with full pay and allowances

The Tribunal reasoned that since both employees were on the same footing and the dismissal had been set aside by the court, the respondents' decision to grant the applicant only 50% pay was discriminatory, illegal, and contrary to the spirit of the previous judicial orders

The respondents were directed to treat the period of absence from 29.05.2017 to 29.04.2021 as "duty for all purposes" and to grant all consequential benefits, including full pay and allowances, for the interrupted period. The exercise must be completed within four months.