IMPORTANT POINTS
Fresh enquiry cannot be held unless disciplinary authority records his reasons for disagreeing with the first enquiry report.
Normally, back wages should be granted on quashing the enquiry and consequent order of removal.

JUDGMENT :

DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.

1. The appellant was appointed on 1 July 1986 as a Headmaster of the Nagar Parishad High School conducted by the Municipal Council of Narkhed in the District of Nagpur. On 5 February 1994, a notice to show cause was issued to him, levelling an allegation of misappropriation of Rs.5,000. After the appellant submitted a reply on 6 February 1994, the first respondent appointed a former Deputy Education Officer, Shri Marathe as an inquiry officer. A charge-sheet was issued to the appellant on 8 June 1994. The inquiry officer submitted a report on 25 July 1994, holding that the appellant was not guilty of the misconduct he was charged with.

2. On 27 August 1994, the first respondent resolved to appoint another inquiry officer to conduct an inquiry into the charges against the appellant. A former Chief Officer, Shri Sontakke was appointed as an inquiry officer. The appellant objected to the convening of a second inquiry by his letter dated 24 September 1994. The new inquiry officer issued a notice to show cause to the appellant on 26 September 1994. The appellant objected to the appointment. In the meantime, on 10 October 1994 the first respondent called upon the appellant to show cause what action should be taken pursuant to the report of the first inquiry officer. On 8 November 1994, the first respondent inferred that the report of Shri Marathe was not acceptable to the appellant and proceeded with the inquiry under Shri Sontakke.

3. The new inquiry officer submitted his report on 20 April 1995, holding the appellant guilty of misappropriation of funds and defalcation. On the basis of the report of the inquiry officer, a notice to show cause was issued to the appellant to which he submitted his reply. The first respondent then passed a resolution removing the appellant. This was followed by an order of removal dated 29 June 1996. The appeal filed by the appellant before the Regional Director, Municipal Administration, Nagpur Division under Section 79 (6) of the Municipal Councils, Nagar Panchayats and Industrial Townships Act 1965 was dismissed on 31 August 1996.

4. The appellant instituted a writ petition before the High Court to challenge his removal. The High Court, by its judgment and order dated 12 August 2014 quashed the order of removal. The appellant had already attained the age of superannuation. The High Court held that no back-wages should be paid to the appellant for the period for which he had not rendered service. However, the High Court directed the disbursement of retiral benefits to the appellant, treating him to be in service with continuity of service until the date of superannuation.

5. The submission which has been urged on behalf of the appellant in support of the appeal is that once the High Court found that the appellant had wrongfully been removed from service, the general principle that back-wages must follow a determination in regard to the illegality of termination should be applied. This was sought to be supported by relying upon the decisions of this Court in Hindustan Tin Works (P) Ltd v Employees (“Hindustan Tin Works”) [(1979) 2 SCC 80] and Deepali Gundu Surwase v Kranti Junior Adhyapak Mahavidyalaya (“Deepali Surwase”)[(2013) 10 SCC 324].

6. After notice was issued in these proceedings, a counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the first respondent. It has been submitted that pursuant to the order of the High Court, retiral benefits amounting to Rs. 27 lakhs have been paid to the appellant in July 2015 after deduction of tax. Moreover, the appellant is drawing a pension of Rs 31,500 per month. The first respondent submitted that within two years of the removal, it had taken necessary steps to reinstate the appellant but the order could not be implemented as a result of a stay granted by the District Collector. The first respondent submitted that the appellant ought not to be granted back-wages for the period for which he has not worked, particularly having re