Reinstatement without full exoneration justifies denial of back wages under the "No Work No Pay" principle.

The appellant, a Constable in District Mandsaur, was issued a charge sheet on 12.04.2001 for abandoning his guard duty at a hospital jail ward after locking the gate, which delayed medical aid to a prisoner and caused public unrest.

Following a departmental enquiry, he was removed from service on 02.07.2002.

After a successful challenge in W.P. No. 1831/2004, the matter was remanded, and the appellate authority modified the penalty on 10.12.2012 to withholding one increment with cumulative effect.

He was reinstated but denied back wages on the principle of "No Work No Pay".

The appellant’s subsequent writ petition challenging the denial of full benefits and the modified penalty was dismissed by the Single Judge on 18.04.2024.

The present writ appeal challenges that dismissal.

1. Whether the modified penalty of withholding one increment with cumulative effect was disproportionate or discriminatory given that other guards were allegedly not punished.

2. Whether the denial of back wages for the intervening period of service is legally sustainable under Fundamental Rule 54 when the employee was reinstated with a reduced penalty.

Fundamental Rule (F.R.) 54(5), which stipulates that in cases of reinstatement where the employee is not fully exonerated, the period of absence shall not be treated as duty unless the competent authority specifically directs otherwise.

Judicial review in departmental proceedings is limited and courts should not interfere with penalties unless they are shockingly disproportionate or involve a violation of natural justice, as established in Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. v. Ashok Kumar Arora (1997) 3 SCC 72 and B.C. Chaturvedi v. Union of India (1995) 6 SCC 749.

The Court observed that the departmental enquiry adhered to the principles of natural justice and afforded the appellant adequate opportunity for representation.

Regarding the severity of the punishment, the Court noted that the appellate authority had already exercised leniency by substituting the harsh penalty of removal with the stoppage of a single increment.

Since the appellant was not "fully exonerated" but rather found guilty and awarded a lesser punishment, he did not have an absolute right to full pay and allowances for the period he was out of service.

The Court reasoned that the competent authority acted within its legal discretion to apply the "No Work No Pay" principle because the appellant’s reinstatement was a result of a modified penalty rather than an acquittal of all charges.

The Division Bench found no perversity or illegality in the Single Judge’s order and affirmed that under F.R. 54(5), a government servant is only entitled to such pay as the competent authority determines if they have not been fully exonerated.

The Writ Appeal was dismissed.