Sudhir Agarwal,J.: -

Order dated 02.9.2014 having been recalled vide order of date passed on Recall Application, writ petition is restored to its original number. As requested and agreed by learned counsel for parties, I proceed to hear and decide this case at this stage.

2. Heard Sri B.R.Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Ashutosh Singh, Advocate holding brief of Sri V.K.Singh, learned counsel for the respondents and perused the record.

3. This writ petition is directed against order of punishment of dismissal dated 27.6.2001 passed by Member Secretary, District Administrative Committee, Sultanpur with the approval of District Administrative Committee vide resolution dated 11.6.2001.

4. Counsel for the petitioner contended that under Regulation 59(1)(c) of U.P. Primary Agricultural Co-operative Credit Societies Centralised Services Regulation, 1978 (hereinafter referred to as (Regulation, 1978"), disciplinary proceedings could have been initiated only by District Administrative Committee. In the present case, proceedings have been initiated by Member Secretary and not by District Administrative Committee. A Full Bench of this Court in Ram Chandra Pandey Vs. District Administrative Committee and others, (1997) 3 UPLBEC 1747, has clearly held that disciplinary proceedings could have been initiated only by District Administrative Committee and not Member Secretary.

5. In para 12 of writ petition specific averments has been made by petitioner that District Administrative Committee have not initiated disciplinary proceedings against petitioner and therefore entire proceedings are illegal. This para 12 has been replied by the respondents in para 12 of the counter affdiavit, which reads as under:

"That the contents of the paragraph 12 of the writ petition are not admitted as stated."

6. It is evident that para 12 of the writ petition has not been denied as such but what is said is that it is not admitted as stated without explaining as to in what manner the respondents admits the averments. Nonthing in fact in the counter affidavit has been stated to show that District Administrative Committee, at any point of time, initiated disciplinary proceedings, which ultimately culminated in the impugned order of dismissal.

7. Once the proceedings itself has been initiated by incompetent authority, the ultimate final order passed even by a competent authority will not validate the illegal and unauthorized proceedings. In the present case the disciplinary proceedings has been initiated by a person not competent to do so, in my view, the ultimate order passed pursuant to such illegal and unauthorized proceedings would not validate the said proceedings and therefore, it is vitiated in law.

8. Counsel for the respondent, however, submitted that petitioner should not be paid backwages for the period he was outside the job and placed reliance on a judgment of this Court in Service Bench No.751 of 1999 (Shitla Deen Verma Vs. Distt. Administrative Committee) decided on 10.5.2012. I find that there nothing has been said as to when an order of dismissal is set aside, an employee in all circumstances would not be entitled for back wages. The judgment does not lay down any principle of law.

9. The question as to when principle of "no work no pay" would apply, has been considered in catena of decisions. Initially, the courts were of the view that once it is found that employee was wrongly denied such salary, he is entitled for entire arrears irrespective of the fact whether he actually discharged duties of the post or not. There was a dichotomy of judicial pronouncements in the matters dealing with labour cases and those dealing with government service, inasmuch as, in labour matters since power of discretionary relief was conferred upon adjudicatory forum under the labour laws, the issue was decided in the light of such provisions and the facts and circumstance of concerned case but in the matter of government servants, initially the courts a