Back
2019 Supreme(All) 2255
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
ANIL KUMAR, SAURABH LAVANIA, JJ.
U.P. Scheduled Caste Finance & Development Corporation Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Surendra Pal Singh & Anr.- Respondents
Service Bench No.6221 of 2019
Decided on : 19-12-2019
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Prakash Kumar Sinha, Akash Sinha
For the Respondent: Pawan Kumar Singh, Sanjai Srivastava
Headnote:
UPPSC - SERVICE LAW - BACK WAGES - NO WORK NO PAY - ENQUIRY - REGULAR ENQUIRY - PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE - MINOR PENALTY - MAJOR PENALTY - MODEL CONDUCT RULES - U.P. GOVERNMENT SERVANTS (DISCIPLINE & APPEAL) RULES, 1999 - WRIT PETITION - WRIT PETITION DISMISSED.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a former employee of the respondent corporation, was dismissed from service in 2000 following an inquiry into financial irregularities. The petitioner challenged the dismissal order and the appellate order before the High Court, which quashed both orders in 2010. The corporation was directed to reinstate the petitioner and pay salary from the date of the High Court order. In compliance with the High Court order, the petitioner was reinstated in 2010 and a fresh inquiry was initiated. The inquiry officer submitted a report in 2011, finding the petitioner guilty of some charges. The petitioner was issued a show-cause notice and submitted a reply. The Managing Director of the corporation passed a punishment order in 2014, denying the petitioner's claim for pay from 2000 to 2010 on the principle of 'No Work, No Pay' and imposing a penalty of recovery of a certain amount. The petitioner challenged the punishment order and the appellate order before the Tribunal, which set aside both orders in 2018. The corporation filed a writ petition in the High Court challenging the Tribunal's order.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court held that the Tribunal was justified in setting aside the punishment order and the appellate order. The Court found that the inquiry officer did not conduct a regular inquiry in accordance with the principles of natural justice. The Court also found that the punishment order was not a reasoned and speaking order. The Court further held that the principle of 'No Work, No Pay' was wrongly applied in this case, as the petitioner was entitled to back wages for the period from 2000 to 2010.
Issues: 1. Whether the inquiry officer conducted a regular inquiry in accordance with the principles of natural justice? 2. Whether the punishment order was a reasoned and speaking order? 3. Whether the principle of 'No Work, No Pay' was correctly applied in this case?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the inquiry officer did not conduct a regular inquiry in accordance with the principles of natural justice, as the petitioner was not given an opportunity to examine the witnesses of the department, those who were required to prove the charges and documents relied upon in the charge sheet, as also an opportunity to produce his witnesses in his defense and an opportunity of being heard in person. 2. The Court held that the punishment order was not a reasoned and speaking order, as it did not mention the reasons for coming to the conclusion. 3. The Court held that the principle of 'No Work, No Pay' was wrongly applied in this case, as the petitioner was entitled to back wages for the period from 2000 to 2010, considering the facts of the case.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
Hon'ble Saurabh Lavania, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel.
2. The present writ petition has been filed challenging the validity of the judgment and order dated 24.09.2018 passed by opposite party no.2/U.P. State Public Services Tribunal (in short "Tribunal") in Claim Petition No.1696 of 2016 filed by the Claimant-opposite party no.1, whereby the opposite party no.2 set aside the punishment order dated 05.12.2014 passed by the Managing Director of the petitioner corporation and the appellate order dated 20.06.2016, whereby the appeal of the opposite party no.1 was rejected by the appellate/competent authority.
3. Vide impugned order dated 24.09.2018, the opposite party no.2 has issued direction for payment of entire salary, allowances and consequential benefits in accordance with law from the date of dismissal i.e. 19.09.2000 to 07.01.2010, the date passing of the order 07.01.2010 in Writ Petition No.1582 of 2003, with a further direction to pay back the realized amount to the opposite party no.1 within, 3 months.
4. Vide order dated 05.12.2014 the opposite party no.1 was denied wages w.e.f. 19.09.2000 to 07.01.2010 on the principle of 'No Work, No Pay' and also issued a direction for recovery of Rs.59,800.00 i.e. half of the amount of Rs.1,19,600/-along with NSC interest as was payable on 01.04.1999.
5. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the opposite party no.1 was posted as Assistant Manager at Allahabad in petitioner corporation and for committing financial irregularities, he was served with charge sheet dated 25.08.1999. After serving of the charge sheet, the opposite party no.1 was suspended vide order dated 24.12.1999 and Sri D. Lal, Chief Finance & Accounts Officer was appointed as enquiry officer to conduct the enquiry against the opposite party no.1 with regard to charges, as mentioned in detail in the charge sheet dated 25.08.1999.
6. The enquiry officer conducted the enquiry and submitted its enquiry report on 11.05.2000. The enquiry officer held that the opposite party no.1 guilty of Charge Nos.1, 2, 3, 4, 5 & 6 of the charge sheet dated 25.08.1999 and charge nos. 7 and 8 were found not proved.
7. On 26.07.2000, the disciplinary authority issued show cause notice to the opposite party no.1 and in response to the same the opposite party no.1 submitted his written representation dated 24.08.2000.
8. The Managing Director of the petitioner corporation after considering the reply of the opposite party no.1 to the show cause notice, enquiry report as well as other material, passed the punishment order dated 19.09.2000.
9. Vide punishment order dated 19.09.2000 the opposite party no.1 was dismissed from the service of petitioner corporation with further punishment of recovery of Rs. 2,54,100.00/-along with interest @ NSC interest.
10. Against the punishment order dated 19.09.2000, the opposite party no.1 filed an Appeal, which was dismissed by the Appellate Authority on 02.01.2003. The order dated 02.01.2003 was communicated to the petitioner vide letter dated 14.01.2003.
11. Feeling aggrieved by the punishment order dated 19.09.2000 and the appellate order dated 02.01.2003, as communicated vide letter dated 14.01.2003, the opposite party no.1 filed the Writ Petition No.1582 (S/S) of 2003. The main reliefs claimed in Writ Petition No.1582 of 2003 by the opposite party no.1 are being quoted hereinunder:-
"Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned judgment and order dated 24.09.2018 passed by O.P. No.2 in Claim Petition No. 1696 of 2016 as contained in Annexure No.1 to this writ petition.
Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus restraining the respondents from implementing, executing and operating the impugned, executing and operating the impugned judgment and order dated 24.09.2018 passed by O.P. No.2 in Claim Petition No.1696 of 2016 as contained in Annexure No.1 to this writ petition."
12. After exchange of pleadings, t
