By the Court.—Aggrieved by the order dated 4.9.2003 passed by U.P. Public Service Tribunal, the petitioner has come for in this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India assailing the said order only to the extent it denies back wages from 22.7.1996 to 4.9.2003.

2. The fact giving rise to this petition, in brief, are that the petitioner was working as Lekhpal. He was placed under suspension on 14.6.1995 by the Sub-divisional Magistrate. A charge-sheet was issued on 28.8.1995 which was replied by him on 18.9.1995. The Enquiry Officer submitted his report on 14.12.1995, which was communicated to the petitioner. He submitted reply and, thereafter, the Sub-divisional Magistrate issued a show-cause notice on 15.12.1995 as to why he may be not dismissed. The petitioner replied on 2.1.1996. However, he was dismissed vide order dated 22.7.1996, whereagainst he filed writ petition No. 32357 of 1996, which was dismissed on the ground of alternative remedy of appeal before the departmental authorities. The petitioner filed an appeal, which was rejected on 9.9.1997, whereagainst his review petition was also dismissed on 22.11.1997. Aggrieved, the petitioner filed claim petition No. 288 of 1999, which has been allowed by the Tribunal setting aside dismissal order dated 22.7.1996, appellate order dated 9.9.1997 and the order dated 22.11.1997 passed on review application, directing the respondents to reinstate him with immediate effect. However, the Tribunal has further said that the so far as back wages are concerned, the petitioner shall not be entitled for full salary from the date of dismissal till he is taken back in service except of a lump-sum compensation of Rs. 25,000/-. The respondents have also been granted liberty to initiate disciplinary proceeding afresh from the stage of submitting reply to the charge-sheet by the petitioner. The petitioner is aggrieved against the aforesaid judgment only to the extent it denies arrears of salary for the period he remained out of employment and instead granting only a lump sum amount of Rs. 25,000/-.

3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that he was kept out of employment on the basis of a wholly illegal order passed by respondent No. 4 and, therefore, he was not at fault. In the circumstances, the petitioner could not have been denied arrears of salary for the period he could not discharge duties though he was ready and willing to work. It is, thus, contended that denial of arrears of salary for the period he remained out of service is arbitrary and illegal. Learned Counsel for the petitioner, in support of his contention that he is entitled for full salary, placed reliance on M/s. Hindustan Tin Works Pvt. Ltd. v. The Employees of M/s. Hindustan Tin Works Pvt. Ltd. and others, AIR 1979 SC 75; Daya Ram Dayal v. State of M.P. and another, 1997 (7) SCC 443 and Dipti Prakash Banerjee v. S.N. Bose National Centre for Basic Sciences, Calcutta and others, AIR 1999 SC 983. In the alternative, it is contended that in any case, the petitioner ought to have been allowed at least 50% of arrears of salary and placed reliance on U.P.S.R.T.C. Ltd. v. Sarada Prasad Misra and another, 2006 (4) SCC 733.

4. The respondents have filed counter-affidavit stating that the principle of ‘no work no pay’ has been made applicable in all such matters, where the employee has not discharged any duty and, therefore, the Tribunal has rightly disallowed full arrears of salary to the petitioner and instead a lump-sum amount, which is quite reasonable, has been allowed. Therefore, order of the Tribunal warrants no interference.

5. We have heard Miss. Anuradha Sundaran appearing for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the respondents and have perused the record.

6. From record, it appears that serious charges of manipulation in revenue records, making false and incorrect entries in order to favour certain individuals etc. were levelled against the petitioner. The disciplin