JUDGMENT :

RAJAN GUPTA, J.

Re: I.A. No. 7634 of 2018

The present interlocutory application has been filed for condoning delay of about 145 days in filing the present appeal against the order dated 04.04.2018, passed in C.W.J.C. No. 17012 of 2014.

For the reasons mentioned in the present petition which is not seriously opposed by the learned counsel for the respondent, we deem it fit and proper to condone the delay in filing the appeal.

I.A. No. 7634 of 2018 stands allowed.

Re: L.P.A. No. 1434 of 2018

1. The present appeal has been filed against the order dated 04.04.2018, passed in 17012 of 2014, whereby and whereunder the order dated 12.01.2013, passed by the Chief Manager, Uttar Bihar Gramin Bank, Muzaffarpur, by which the writ petitioner has been imposed with the punishment of dismissal from service, as also the appellate order dated 04.03.2014 have been quashed, with a further direction to the appellants herein to reinstate the petitioner in service with all consequential benefits and 50% back wages, however liberty has been granted to the disciplinary authority to proceed afresh.

2. The learned Senior counsel for the appellants Sri Ajay Kr. Sinha, at the outset, has submitted that since the matter has been remanded back to the disciplinary authority to consider the inquiry report as well as the reply of the petitioner against the findings of the Inquiry Officer and to pass a fresh order, the appellants are not assailing that portion of the impugned order dated 04.04.2018 whereby and whereunder the punishment Order has been quashed, however the appellants are only aggrieved with that part of the impugned order by which the writ petitioner-respondent herein has been granted 50% back wages. In this connection, the learned Senior counsel for the respondent has referred to a judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of ECIL, Hyderabad and Others vs. B. Karunakar and Others, (1993) 4 SCC 727. It would be apt to refer to paragraphs No. 30(v) and 31 of the said judgment herein-below:

“30. Hence the incidental questions raised above may be answered as follows:

“(v) The next question to be answered is what is the effect on the order of punishment when the report of the enquiry officer is not furnished to the employee and what relief should be granted to him in such cases. The answer to this question has to be relative to the punishment awarded. When the employee is dismissed or removed from service and the inquiry is set aside because the report is not furnished to him, in some cases the non-furnishing of the report may have prejudiced him gravely while in other cases it may have made no difference to the ultimate punishment awarded to him. Hence to direct reinstatement of the employee with back-wages in all cases is to reduce the rules of justice to a mechanical ritual. The theory of reasonable opportunity and the principles of natural justice have been evolved to uphold the rule of law and to assist the individual to vindicate his just rights. They are not incantations to be invoked nor rites to be performed on all and sundry occasions. Whether in fact, prejudice has been caused to the employee or not on account of the denial to him of the report, has to be considered on the facts and circumstances of each case. Where, therefore, even after the furnishing of the report, no different consequence would have followed, it would be a perversion of justice to permit the employee to resume duty and to get all the consequential benefits. It amounts to rewarding the dishonest and the guilty and thus to stretching the concept of justice to illogical and exasperating limits. It amounts to an “unnatural expansion of natural justice” which in itself is antithetical to justice.”

31. Hence, in all cases where the enquiry officer’s report is not furnished to the delinquent employee in the disciplinary proceedings, the Courts and Tribunals should cause the copy of the report to be furnished to the aggrieved employee if he has not already secur