Back
2017 Supreme(Del) 1204
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
VIPIN SANGHI, DEEPA SHARMA, JJ.
Sudhir Kumar - Petitioner
Versus
Government of NCT of Delhi & Anr. - Respondents
W.P.(C) 1316 of 2017
Decided On : 19-04-2017
For the Petitioner: Mr. Asish Nischal, Mr. Arun Nischal
For the Respondents: Mr. Siddharth Dutta, Mr. Mukul Lather
The court's discretion in granting backwages depends on the employee's conduct and the application of the principle of no work no pay.
Headnote:
Backwages - Employment Misconduct - CCS (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1965 - Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, IPC - 3(1)(ii)(iii) of CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, an employee in the office of Labour Commissioner, was charged with demanding bribe money and convicted under the Prevention of Corruption Act and IPC. His services were terminated, but the dismissal was set aside by the Tribunal, which denied backwages based on the principle of no work no pay.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the denial of backwages was justified due to the petitioner's involvement in a bribery case and conviction by the Trial Court. The court upheld the Tribunal's decision to deny backwages based on the principle of no work no pay.
Issues: Entitlement to backwages upon reinstatement, discretion of the court in granting backwages, application of the principle of no work no pay.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's discretion in granting backwages depends on the facts and circumstances of each case. The principle of no work no pay applies when the employee's conduct justifies the denial of backwages.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed, and the denial of backwages was upheld.
Deepa Sharma, J.
1. Vide this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order of Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) dated 19.08.2016, whereby while he was ordered to be reinstated, the backwages were denied to him.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was employed in the office of Labour Commissioner as LDC. He was charged with demand of Rs.1000/- as bribe money from Ajay Kumar Gupta, S/o Suraj Bhan for issuing a recovery certificate to him. Since he was found to have committed grave misconduct during his employment, a Departmental Enquiry ensued under CCS (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as “the CCS (CCA) Rules”). A chargesheet containing the following charges was served upon him:-
“On 09/12/2003, Sh. Sudhir Kumar S/o Sh. Katar Singh R/o, V&PO Kasim Pur Kheri, Thana Ramala, Distt. Baghpat, U.P., while working as LDC in Labour Commissioner Office (sic) at 5-Sham Nath Marg, Delhi demanded Rs.1000/- as bribe from one Sh. Ajay Kumar Gupta S/o Sh. Suraj Bhan Gupta, R/o 62, Krishna Kunj colony, Delhi for issuing him recovery certificate who was ex-employee in Delhi Automobiles, Jhandewalan Delhi and after his removal from service had won his case from labour court.
Sh. Sudhir Kumar indulged himself in corrupt practices and abused his official position.
Therefore, the above act committed by Sh. Sudhir Kumar, S/o Sh. Katar Singh, R/o V&PO Kasim Pur, Kheri, Thana, Ramala, Distt. Bhagpat (UP) in the capacity of government servant working as UDC at Labour Commissioner Office at 5, Sham Nath Marg, Delhi amount to gross misconduct lack of integrity and conducted himself in such a manner which is unbecoming of a Government Servant while discharging of his official duties which renders him liable for departmental action in violating the provision of Rule 3(1)(ii)(iii) of CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964.”
3. An FIR No.61/2003 was also registered against the petitioner and his co-accused Dinesh Chand Gupta for the offences punishable under Section 7/13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Section 120-B of the IPC by Anti-Corruption Branch, Delhi. After completion of the investigation into the FIR, the trial in the case begun. The Enquiry Officer, after recording and appreciating the evidence, submitted his Enquiry Report dated 18.03.2013 in the regular Departmental Enquiry (DE). Since the petitioner and his other co-accused were convicted and sentenced to undergo RI for a period of two years along with a fine of Rs.10,000/- each vide judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 11.05.2011 by the Special Judge, the DE was kept in abeyance, however, a penalty of removal from service was imposed on the petitioner vide order dated 3/4th October, 2012 by the Disciplinary Authority in exercise of powers conferred under Rule 19(1) of CCS (CCA) Rules. The petitioner had appealed against this order and his appeal was also dismissed vide order dated 13.03.2013 by the Appellate Authority. Thereafter, the petitioner filed the OA before the Central Administrative Tribunal, challenging the order of dismissal on several grounds. The respondents contested the matter before the CAT and vide impugned order dated 19.08.2016, the dismissal order of the petitioner was set aside and the disciplinary authorities were given liberty to conclude the already initiated regular Departmental Enquiry. While all the other consequential benefits were awarded to the petitioner on setting aside the dismissal order, he was denied the backwages on the principle of no work no pay, relying on the findings in the case of Vijay Singh vs. Union of India, AIR 2007 SC 1384.
The petitioner has assailed the said denial of the backwages for the period of his unemployment alleging that it was due to the act of the respondent that he remained out of the service and since that act of the respondent was found illegal, incorrect and was set aside, he ought to have been reinstated into the service along with the full
