An employee whose service is illegally terminated is entitled to full back wages unless the employer proves otherwise.

JUDGMENT :

MURALEE KRISHNA S, J.

This writ appeal is filed by the petitioners in W.P.(C)No.22517 of 2018, assailing the judgment dated 06.09.2021 passed by the learned Single Judge, by which the writ petition filed by them challenging Ext. P9 award of the Co-operative Arbitration Court, Thiruvananthapuram, was dismissed, confirming the direction of the Arbitration Court to pay full salary and other monetary benefits to the 1^st respondent for the period from 30.10.1998 to 08.04.2003.

2. The 1^st respondent was working as Secretary of appellant No.1-Bank. He was placed under suspension with effect from 30.10.1998 alleging misconduct, including financial mismanagement. On inquiry, 7 out of 9 charges were found against him by the enquiry officer and he was dismissed from service with effect from the date of suspension. The appeal filed by the 1^st respondent before the Board of Directors of the Bank was also dismissed. Against the order passed in the appeal, he filed a petition before the Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies. While so, the Board of Directors of the Bank was superseded, and an Administrator took charge on 19.03.2003. On 04.04.2003, the Joint Registrar remanded the appeal to the Board of Directors. The Administrator heard and allowed the appeal on 08.04.2003 directing reinstatement of the 1^st respondent and accordingly, he rejoined duty on the next day.

3. Meanwhile, the Board of Directors challenged the supersession proceedings by filing OP No.9723 of 2003 before this Court, and by the judgment dated 27.08.2003 the order of supersession was set aside. The Board of Directors returned to the office on the strength of the judgment in OP No.9723 of 2003 and challenged the order of the Administrator before the Joint Registrar which ended in dismissal. It was taken up on appeal before the Government which was also dismissed on the ground that the challenge was by a third party. The Board of Directors again initiated disciplinary proceedings against the 1^st respondent which was challenged by him initially before the joint Registrar and then before the Government. By the order dated 27.09.2004 the appeal was dismissed by the Government. Against the dismissal of the appeal, the 1^st respondent filed W.P.(C)No.30842 of 2004 before this Court. The Bank as well as a member of the bank also filed writ petitions before this Court. All three writ petitions were heard together and as per Ext.P1 judgment dated 30.05.2006, the learned Single Judge found that the action of the Administrator was beyond his authority, since the supersession of the Board itself was set aside by this Court in OP No.9723 of 2003. It was held that the Board in office on the basis of the judgment in OP No.9723 of 2003 have to hear the appeal of the 1^st respondent and decide in accordance with law. As against the challenge on the government order according to which the disciplinary proceedings could be proceeded against the 1^st respondent, it was found that interference with the said disciplinary proceedings was not called for when an inquiry officer was already appointed. As per Ext.P1, the proceedings by the Administrator, Joint Registrar and the Government were set aside. The said judgment of this Court was taken in appeal by filing writ appeal Nos.1121 of 2006, 1123 of 2006, and 1126 of 2006. As per Ext.P2 judgment dated 11.12.2006, the Division Bench found that there was tacit approval of the reinstatement and therefore the learned Single Judge was not right in remitting the appeal again to the Board. Therefore, that direction of the learned Single Judge was set aside. The Division Bench did not interfere with the second set of disciplinary proceedings. The Division Bench directed the Bank to consider the question of regularisation of the period of suspension and the date of reinstatement, on filing a representation by the 1^st respondent. On the basis of this direction, the Board of Directors again considered the request of the 1^st respondent and as per