JUDGMENT :

SANGEETA SHARMA, J.

1. The present D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) Nos. 873/2023 and 77/2024 have been preferred against the judgment dated 19.07.2023 rendered by the learned Single Judge in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9900/2005, in which the following orders and directions were passed:-

“22. ...the impugned orders dated 08.03.2004 and 31.08.2004 are quashed and set aside. The matter is remitted back to the appropriate authority for passing reasoned and speaking order after following the provisions contained under Chapter VII of the Rules of 1969 after granting opportunity of hearing to both sides within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

23. As a result, this petition is allowed in part. The respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioner back in service but he will not be entitled to get any back-wages from the date of his removal from service till his reinstatement.”

2. Aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment, the appellant–writ petitioner has preferred D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No. 873/2023, seeking grant of back-wages and further assailing that part of the impugned judgment whereby the matter has been remitted to the competent disciplinary authority for passing a fresh order.

3. On the other hand, the respondent–Union of India has filed D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No. 77/2024, calling in question the interference with the disciplinary proceedings and the consequential direction for reinstatement of the appellant.

4. Since both the appeals emanate from the same judgment and involve common factual matrix as well as interconnected questions of law, they are being heard together and are disposed of by this common judgment. For the sake of convenience, D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No. 873/2023 is treated as the leading appeal, and the parties are referred to in accordance with their respective status therein.

5. The factual conspectus giving rise to the present appeals is that the appellant was appointed as Constable (General Duty) vide order dated 12.01.1995. On 27.10.2003, the appellant was sanctioned eight days’ casual leave for the period from 27.10.2003 to 04.11.2003, and was required to report back for duty on 05.11.2003.

6. The appellant had reserved a train ticket for 04.11.2003, but he did not resume duty on the stipulated date citing the sudden cardiac illness of his mother. He subsequently rejoined duty voluntarily on 20.01.2004.

7. Consequent thereto, the respondent-department initiated departmental proceedings against the appellant on the charge of overstay of leave, which culminated in an order of dismissal dated 08.03.2004, passed by the Summary Security Force Court (hereinafter referred to as “SSFC”). The statutory appeal preferred by the appellant was dismissed by the Appellate Authority vide order dated 31.08.2004.

8. Aggrieved by the aforesaid orders, the appellant approached this Court by filing a writ petition, inter alia, alleging procedural irregularities, violation of the principles of natural justice, and dis-proportionality of punishment, which ultimately culminated in the impugned judgment dated 19.07.2023.

9. In the present Special Appeals, it is evident that both sides, namely the appellant as well as the respondent–Union of India, are aggrieved by the judgment rendered by the learned Single Judge but for different reasons. The appeals, therefore, require a careful examination of the parties’ respective grievances to assess the legality and sustainability of the impugned judgment.

10. On behalf of the appellant, it has been contended, in substance, that although the learned Single Judge had rightfully set aside the order of dismissal and directed reinstatement of the appellant in service, however, the denial of back-wages for the period from the date of dismissal till reinstatement is wholly arbitrary and bereft of any cogent reasons.

11. It has further been contended that the direction issued by the learned Single Judge remanding the matter to the disciplina