Reinstatement after wrongful termination entitles an employee to back wages unless the employer proves otherwise, even if a minor penalty like censure is imposed.

JUDGMENT :

Purnendu Singh, J.

Heard Mr. Prashant Sinha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. Bindhyachal Singh, learned senior counsel along with Mr. Parth Gaurav, learned counsel for the respondents.

2. The petitioner has sought for the reliefs as prayed for in Para-1 of the writ petition, which is, inter alia, reproduced hereinafter:

“(i) For issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing of Memo No. 2427 dated 07-04-2010 issued by the Managing Director, Bihar Industrial Area Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as BIADA only) whereby the claim made by the Petitioner for the back wages along with C.P.F. for the period of February, 2008 to May,2009, i.e., the period when the Petitioner remained wrongfully terminated, has been rejected in wrong appreciation of the judgement delivered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Novartis India Ltd. Vs. the State of West Bengal and others (2009) 3 SCC,124 while this Hon'ble Court had directed the respondents to consider the claim of back wages of the Petitioner in accordance with the guidelines given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid case.

(ii) For issuance of writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing of order contained in Memo No. 3891 dated 08-06-2010 whereby a minor punishment of censure has been awarded to the Petitioner with the only purpose to deny the claim of back wages to the Petitioner in as much as the punishment order confirms the order rejecting the claim of back wages and reliance has been placed upon the judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court delivered in the case of M.D. ECIL Vs. B Karunakar (1993) 4 SCC 727. Needless to say that the M.D., BIADA was aware about the Supreme Court judgement in the B. Karunakar case and as such, in order to deny back wages to the Petitioner a minor punishment of censure has been awarded upon him, particularly when no misconduct was proved in the departmental proceeding.

(iii) For any other direction, which your Lordships may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.

3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has filed the present writ petition praying to quash office order contained in memo No. 2427 dated 7/4/2010 of the Bihar Industrial Area Development Authority (in short the Authority/BIADA) by which the claim of back wages with CPF from the period February 2008 to May 2009, as a result of petitioner’s termination from the service has been rejected in garb of punishment order dated 8/6/2010 by which ‘censure’ has been imposed in a departmental proceeding in which charges were not proved against the petitioner. The petitioner has filed an interlocutory application bearing I.A. No. 7648 of 2013 for modifying the relief prayed in paragraph No.1 for directing the respondent Authority to pay him full salary for the period he had remained under suspension viz from 14.5.2009 to 22.11.2009 and also to pay him back wages for the above said period and to quash the enquiry report dated 5.4.2010 submitted in the departmental proceeding held against him.

4. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner was initially appointed as Steno typist in the erstwhile North Bihar Industrial Area Development Authority, Muzaffarpur vide order No. 616 dated 22.5.1976 on temporary basis. Vide order contained in memo No. 2405 dated 6.7.2007, a departmental proceeding was initiated against the petitioner and pursuant thereto by order contained in Memo No. 77 dated 6.2.2008 of the Authority, the petitioner was terminated from service. He further submitted that the petitioner challenged the above order of termination dated 6/2/2008, before the Hon'ble Court by filing C.W.J.C. No. 8412 of 2008 and the Hon'ble Court vide order dated 5/5/2009 was pleased to set aside the said order of termination and was further pleased to direct that insofar as the claim of back wages of the petitioner for the period he remained terminated on account of the said termin