In cases of wrongful termination, the standard remedy is reinstatement with back wages unless the employer proves the employee's concurrent gainful employment during the termination period.

ORDER :

1. Petitioner assails action of 2^nd respondent in refusing to grant back wages and increments for the period of termination from service, to be illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and consequently, for a direction to the respondents for payment of the back wages and necessary increments for the subject period.

2. Petitioner was appointed as Kalasi in the respondent Corporation, which was earmarked for B.C.-A category. Petitioner being ‘Vada Balija’, claimed to be belonging to B.C.-A category, basing on the said caste certificate, he came to be appointed. After putting about six years in service, he was served charge memo, dated 21.01.1998, alleging that the caste certificate, produced by him claiming to be belonging to BC-A category, for the purpose of securing employment, was false and bogues, and therefore, disciplinary proceedings came to be initiated. Petitioner contested the charge-memo, however, ultimately, by proceedings, dated 19.06.1998, his services came to be terminated, holding that the caste certificate so produced was found to be false and bogus. The same came to be eventually challenged in W.P.No.36001 of 1998. After contest, the writ petition has been allowed by order, dated 29.11.2001. This Court, having noted the factum that the disciplinary proceedings came to be initiated based on the alleged report of Mandal Revenue Officer, which concluded that petitioner belonged to ‘Balija’ caste, which was included in forward community, and that the caste certificate then issued in favour of petitioner stating to be ‘Vada Balija’ to be false, which report, in turn, was forwarded by District Collector, Nellore to the respondent Corporation, inasmuch as the procedure so adopted was clearly being contrary to Section 5 the A.P. (Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Backward Classes) Regulation of Issue of Community Certificates Act, 1993 (for short, “the Act”) read with Rule 8 of the A.P. (Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Backward Classes) Issue of Community, Nativity and Date of Birth Certificates Rules, 1997 (for short, “the Rules”) has set aside the termination order and relegated the enquiry to the District Level Screening Committee (for short, ‘the DLSC’) headed by District Collector to enquire into the caste certificate produced by the petitioner whether to be genuine or not, within a period of six months, and in turn, the respondent Corporation to proceed with the enquiry thereafter. In view of setting aside the termination order, the respondent Corporation was directed to reinstate petitioner into service forthwith. The respondent Corporation had, thereafter, preferred Writ Appeal No.325 of 2002, assailing aforesaid order of the learned single Judge. By interim order, dated 23.09.2002, the Hon’ble Division Bench directed the respondent Corporation to reinstate the petitioner as the enquiry before the DLSC could not be concluded within the time stipulated. In compliance thereof, petitioner came to be reinstated back into service on 17.10.2002. The DLSC, having concluded the enquiry, submitted its report, dated 16.04.2005, holding that the initial certificate produced by the petitioner was valid and legal and that petitioner belonged to B.C.-A category. Eventually, even the Writ Appeal also came to be dismissed, by judgment, dated 10.06.2005, by taking note of aforesaid report of the DLSC. Further, the respondent Corporation was also directed to reinstate petitioner into service forthwith. Accepting the same, 2^nd respondent herein issued proceedings, dated 06.02.2006, reinstating petitioner into service with continuity of service, however, without