Wrongful dismissal due to procedural incompetence entitles employee to reinstatement and discretionary back wages without remand.

The respondent, a Junior Electrical Engineer appointed by the Bihar State Electricity Board in 2011, was served a show-cause notice in 2012 for unauthorized absence and indiscipline.

Following a transfer she did not join, a departmental proceeding was initiated by the Officer on Special Duty (Administration).

The enquiry resulted in her dismissal on 26.06.2013, which was approved by the Chairman-cum-Managing Director and later upheld by the Appellate Authority on 20.12.2014.

The learned Single Judge quashed the dismissal and directed reinstatement with full consequential benefits, finding that the initiation of proceedings and the penalty order were passed by incompetent authorities.

The Appellants (Power Holding Co.) filed this Letters Patent Appeal, arguing that if an order is quashed on technical grounds, the matter should be remanded for a fresh enquiry and full back wages should not be automatic.

1. Whether the learned Single Judge committed an error in law by not directing a fresh enquiry after holding the disciplinary proceeding vitiated on technical grounds

2. Whether the respondent is entitled to full back wages and consequential benefits as a result of her reinstatement

When a punishment is quashed on technical grounds, the authority should generally be allowed to conduct the enquiry afresh from the stage of the defect.

Reinstatement does not automatically entitle an employee to back wages, which remains a discretionary relief.

The "long time lag" exception permits a court to refrain from remanding a matter if a fresh enquiry would be unfairly harsh due to excessive delay.

Factors like length of service, nature of misconduct, and gainful employment must be balanced to determine back wages.

The Court observed that while the initiation of the enquiry by the O.S.D. (Admn.) was indeed a procedural/jurisdictional defect that usually warrants a remand for a fresh de-novo enquiry, nearly 13 years had elapsed since the original charges.

Citing Cantonment Executive Officer v. Vijay D. Wani, the Court reasoned that forcing a fresh enquiry after such a prolonged period would be "unfair, harsh or otherwise unnecessary".

Regarding back wages, the Court noted that back wages are not a "cast iron rule" but must be adjudicated based on equity.

Given that the dismissal was quashed due to an inherent procedural defect by the employer (acting through an incompetent authority) rather than an exoneration on merits, the Court determined that the employer should not be burdened with 100% back wages, but the employee must be restored to a status quo that acknowledges the illegal termination.

The direction for "all consequential benefits" was set aside and replaced with a direction to pay 50% of the back wages and allowances for the period the respondent was out of service.

The Court partly allowed the appeal.