JUDGMENT

Satish Chandra, J. - M. A. Khan the applicant was employed as a Travelling Ticket Examiner by the Northern Railway. Pending enquiry into certain charges, he was placed under suspension on 10th July, 1962. The applicant was prosecuted in the regular criminal Court and was convicted under Section 418, Indian Penal Code and sentenced to 18 months' R. I. on 10th May, 1963. On 31st May, 1963, the Divisional Commercial Superintendent passed an order dismissing him from service. The applicant appealed against his conviction. The Additional Sessions Judge, Agra on 7th December, 1963. allowed his appeal and acquitted him. As a consequence of this order, the Divisional Commercial Superintendent passed an order of reinstatement of the applicant on 17th April, 1964. Subsequently on 4th August, 1964, the Divisional Commercial Superintendent passed another order allowing full wages to the applicant with effect from 7th December. 1963, onwards and allowing only half wages for the period between 31st May, 1963, the date of dismissal and 7th December, 1963, when the applicant was acquitted. Feeling aggrieved, the applicant applied to the Authority under the Payment of Wages Act for an award of Rs. 3,231.50 which he claimed to have been illegally deducted out of his wages for the period beginning with 10th July, 1962, the date when he was placed under suspension till 17th April, 1964.

2. The Authority held that the deductions claimed by the applicant were illegal and unlawful. The application was held to have been made within time. The application was accordingly allowed. The respondents were directed to pay the sum of Rs. 3231.50 to the applicant.

3. It appears that during the pendency of these proceedings the respondents paid to the applicant a sum of Rs. 1,414.11 on 3rd October, 1964. The dispute remained about the balance. Feeling aggrieved, the railway authorities went up in appeal and succeeded. The Additional District Judge, Agra, held that the order directing the payment of half wages for a part of the period in dispute was an order passed under Rule 2044 of the Railway Establishment Code. It was passed by an authority competent to do so and since it was an order passed under statutory authority, it was covered by Clause (h) of Section 7 (2) of the Payment of Wages Act and as such was not only a permissible deduction, but that the Authority under the Payment of Wages Act had no jurisdiction to go into the merits of that order. On this view the appeal was allowed and the order passed by the Payment of Wages Authority was set aside and the application made under Section 15 (2) was dismissed. Aggrieved, the applicant has come to this Court in revision. At the hearing of the revision a learned single Judge felt that it raised important questions of law which could well be considered by a larger Bench. That is why the matter has been placed before this Bench.

4. For the applicant it was urged that the order in regard to deduction from wages from the date of his suspension till the date of his reinstatement was not an order covered by Rule 2044 of the Establishment Code, because that rule was not attracted and, further, the order having been passed in violation of the principles of natural justice, was null and void; and, thirdly, the order was not passed by the Authority competent to do so under that rule.

5. Rule 2044 provided:

"2044. (F. R. 54) Pay after Rein-statement.:

(1) When a railway servant who has been dismissed, removed, compulsorily retired or suspended is reinstated, the authority competent to order the reinstatement shall consider and make a specific order -

(a) regarding the pay and allowances to be paid to the railway servant for the period of his absence from duty; and

(b) whether or not the said period shall be treated as a period spent on duty.

(2) Where the authority mentioned in o' sub-rule (1) is of the opinion that the railway servant has been fully exonerated or. in the case of suspension, that it was wholly unjus