1. Termination of service of a member of a disciplined force — Reinstatement and retrospective confirmation in service by authorities following a tribunal order. (Para 2 )
Back
Next 
1994 Supreme(SC) 4
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
M.N.Venkatachaliah, C.J.I., S.Mohan, J.
Deputy Commissioner Of Police
Versus
Akhlaq Ahmad
Case No. : 2350 of 1991
Date of Decision : 1/3/94
Public funds should not be used to pay back-salary as a reward for deviant conduct, particularly for members of a disciplined force, even if they have been reinstated and retrospectively confirmed in service.
Headnote:(A) Service Law - Termination of service - Reinstatement and back-salary - Where authorities have subsequently confirmed the respondent in service, the court will not disturb the reinstatement even if the tribunal's view on the nature of termination and its effect on discipline was potentially incorrect. (Paras 2 and 3)
(B) Back-salary - Disciplined force - Public money is not to be spent as a premium for deviant conduct, particularly of members of a disciplined force - Direction to pay half of the back-salary is not justified and is set aside. (Para 4)
Facts of the case:
A member of a disciplined force was terminated from service. A tribunal ordered reinstatement and the payment of half of the back-salary. Subsequent to the tribunal's order, the authorities reinstated the individual and further issued an order confirming them in service with retrospective effect.
Findings of Court:
The court found that while the tribunal's appreciation of the termination might have been incorrect, the subsequent voluntary action of the authorities to confirm the individual in service makes it improper to disturb the reinstatement. However, the award of back-salary was found to be unjustified given the nature of the force.
Issues: Whether the reinstatement ordered by the tribunal should be set aside and whether the award of back-salary to a member of a disciplined force for deviant conduct is permissible.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that public money should not be utilized as a premium for deviant conduct, especially within a disciplined force; therefore, back-salary is not payable notwithstanding the retrospective confirmation of service.
Result: Petition for special leave disposed of; direction for payment of back-salary set aside.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Challenge to the correctness of the tribunal's order regarding the nature of termination and its impact on the discipline of the police force. (Para 2 )
3. Reinstatement and subsequent retrospective confirmation by authorities render the challenge to reinstatement untenable; back-salary is unjustified for deviant conduct in a disciplined force. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 )
4. Public funds should not be used to pay back-salary to members of a disciplined force for periods of absence resulting from deviant conduct. (Para 4 )
5. Reinstatement upheld; direction for payment of back-salary set aside; any back-salary paid to be recovered. (Para 4 , 5 )
6. Whether subsequent confirmation in service by authorities precludes the setting aside of a reinstatement order?
Yes, where authorities have reinstated and subsequently confirmed the employee in service through actions not compelled by a tribunal's order, the court may decline to disturb the reinstatement. (Para 2 , 3 )
7. Whether back-salary is payable to a member of a disciplined force for a period of deviant conduct?
No, public money is not to be spent as a premium for deviant conduct, especially by members of a disciplined force, making the payment of back-salary unjustified. (Para 4 )
(1) HEARD learned counsel on both sides.
(2) WE do consider the contentions of Shri K. Lahiri, learned Senior Counsel, against the correctness of the order of the tribunal eminently arguable. It is true that the tribunals view may not have correctly appreciated the nature of the termination and the effect its order would have on the discipline of the police force. But, subsequent to the order of the tribunal, the authorities have not only reinstated the respondent back in service which action could be explained as consistent with the directions of the tribunal but have also subsequently by a further order dated 18/02/1991 confirmed the respondent in service with effect from February I, 1986. The latter action on the part of the authorities cannot be said to have been taken under the compulsions of the tribunals order.
(3) IN view of these subsequent developments, we do not think it is proper for us to disturb and set aside the reinstatement. Indeed, this prayer has been rendered difficult to be granted by the actions of the authorities themselves.
(4) HOWEVER, we think that the direction of the Tribunal that half of the backsalary be paid, is not justified. Public money is not to be spent as a premium for such deviant conduct particularly of the members of a disciplined force. We set aside that part of the order of the tribunal and direct that no back salary whatever shall be payable to the respondent till the date of reinstatement, notwithstanding the retrospective confirmation. Respondent says that no back salary has been paid to him. If it is paid it shall be recovered.
(5) WITH these observations and directions, the petition for special leave is disposed of.
