JUDGMENT :

The present writ appeal is arising out of the order dated 22.07.2019 passed in WP.No.33808/2018.

2. The facts of the case reveal that the present appellant has issued a notification on 16.10.2012 inviting applications for the backlog posts in accordance with Karnataka State Civil Services (Unfilled vacancies reserved for the persons belonging to the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes) (Special Recruitment) Rules, 2001. The respondent was appointed on probation and while he was on probation, as there was an alleged suppression in respect of details of criminal cases, a discharge order was passed on 21.1.2015.

3. The sole respondent being aggrieved by the order dated 21.1.2015 filed a writ petition before this Court i.e., WP.No.3517/2015 and this Court has set aside the discharge order dated 21.1.2015 and directed the employer to conduct an enquiry and to conclude the same within six months.

4. That an enquiry was conducted by the Principal District and Sessions Judge (retired) and it was concluded on 6.2.2016 exonerating the respondent and subsequently a report was received from the Sub Inspector of Police, Mandya West, in respect of some criminal cases pending against the sole respondent. The disciplinary authority has thereafter passed an order on 25.3.2016 for conducting a fresh departmental enquiry.

5. The sole respondent made a representation on 20.1.2018 for reinstatement and back wages. However, the same was not done and a fresh charge memo was issued by the disciplinary authority on 31.1.2018. Thereafter, finally an order has been passed terminating the services of the petitioner on 14.6.2019. The respondent came up before this Court by filing a subsequent writ petition i.e., WP.No.33808/2018 with a limited prayer that he is entitled for salary for the intervening period i.e., w.e.f., 21.1.2015 to 14.6.2019. The learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition holding that the employee is entitled for salary from the date the order of discharge was quashed till a subsequent discharge order has been passed i.e., from 21.1.2015 to 14.6.2019.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued before this Court that the learned Single Judge has erred in law and in facts of the case in allowing the writ petition as in the earlier round of litigation while deciding WP.No.3517/2015, vide order dated 23.11.2015, the learned Single Judge has not directed reinstatement and has left all of the contentions open. On the other hand, learned counsel for the employee has argued before this Court that the learned Single Judge was justified in granting back wages as the discharge order passed against the employee was set aside. He has further contended that once the discharge order of an employee is set aside, his reinstatement becomes inevitable and without reinstating him in service, the question of holding a departmental enquiry does not arise and therefore, the learned Single Judge was justified in granting him back wages.

7. This Court has carefully gone through the order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 22.7.2019 passed in W.P.No.33808/2018. Paragraphs 2 to 10 read as under:

“2. Undisputed facts are that the petitioner was on probation. He was discharged from service on 21.01.2015 on several allegations relating to misleading the appointing authority and obtaining an order of appointment. This Court has set aside the order of discharge dated 21.01.2015 in W.P.3517/2015 on 23.11.2015. Paragraph No.8 of the order reads as under:-

“8. The quashing of the impugned order does not automatically entitle the petitioner to the relief of reinstatement. The petitioner has not even become a permanent employee. So the question of suspending him pending enquiry would not arise. If he is a reputation risk in the perceptual assessment of the respondent, it cannot be directed to reinstate him pending enquiry. The reinstatement, the payment of backwages, etc., would depend upon the outcome of the enquiry directed hereinabove. All contentions