BANK OF INDIA vs BANK OF INDIA STAFF UNION AND ANR. - 2024-02-20

O R D E R

The petitioners seek leave to assail the judgment dated 18.5.2022 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench in W.C. No. 19385/2018.

Only a limited notice was issued by this Court on 31.10.2022, confining it to the question: “whether the award of backwages requires interference”?

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and also learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

The impugned judgment would reveal that despite being granted various opportunities to adduce evidence before the Tribunal, the petitioners had failed to adduce any evidence with regard to the charges levelled. Hence, we are not persuaded by the contentions of the petitioners to interfere with order for disbursement of back wages. The facts and circumstances clearly suggest that the petitioners are now attempting to take advantage of their own wrong by placing reliance on the principle “no work no pay” cannot be accepted as a rule of thumb as it cannot be without any exception. The indisputable and undisputed position is that evidence was not adduced by the petitioners after the passing of the order dated 24.1.2017 pursuant to the preliminary enquiry and the fact is that before the respondent no. 2 attained the age of superannuation, the enquiry had not attained its logical end and at the same time he was no reinstated in service. The rule underlying the principle of “audi alteram partem” is that no man shall be condemned unless he has been given prior notice of the allegations and offered a fair opportunity to defend the charges. That procedure having not been done, the respondent no. 2 cannot be visited with any adverse consequences of an inchoate departmental proceedings. In the circumstances obtained, denying backwages to the respondent no.2, as has been ordered, virtually would violate the maxim “nullus commodum capere potest de injura sua propria” (No man can take advantage of his own wrong), which is one of the salient tenets of equity and recognised by this Court. Ergo, we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned judgment.

We are of the considered view that the case on hand cannot brook the application of the principle ‘no work no pay’ and it falls within the exception. No case is made out which calls for interference. Accordingly, this special leave petition is dismissed.

Pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of.

(DR. NAVEEN RAWAL) (MATHEW ABRAHAM)

ASTT. REGISTRAR-cum-PS COURT MASTER (NSH)