Point of Law: In cases of wrongful termination of service, reinstatement with continuity of service and back wages is normal rule.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Sri Vishnu Pratap learned counsel appearing for the appellant/respondent and Sri Ajay Rajendra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent/petitioner.

2. Petitioners, herein, a bank, by the instant intra court appeal has raised challenge to the judgment and order dated 26 July 2021, passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ-A No. 43450 of 2014 (Vijay Agarwal vs. Chairman and Managing Director Central Bank of India and others) to the extent that the impugned order has directed appellant to pay arrears of salary and consequential benefits for the period of dismissal until reinstatement.

3. The respondent/petitioner was out of service pursuant to an order of dismissal dated 4 August 2006 until his reinstatement 24 August 2013. Aggrieved, by the dismissal order the respondent/petitioner filed a writ petition being Writ-A No. 17804 of 2007, which came to be allowed only on the quantum of punishment imposed on the respondent/petitioner. The writ Court was of the opinion that the punishment imposed is not commensurate to the guilt, accordingly, a lesser punishment would suffice. The operative portion of the order reads thus :

"Hence, the punishment awarded against the petitioner is disproportionate to the charges against him. Hence, the order dated 4.8.2006 passed by the disciplinary authority, respondent no. 3, the order dated 19.12.2006 passed by appellate authority, respondent no. 2 and the charge sheet dated 6.6.2005 (Annexures No. 1, 2 and 3 respectively to the writ petition) are hereby quashed. The disciplinary authority will consider the matter afresh for awarding any lesser punishment apart from dismissal or removal from service and will pass an appropriate order as expeditiously as possible preferably within two months after furnishing of the certified copy of this order.

Accordingly, the present petition is hereby allowed. No order as to cost."

4. It appears that the appellant-respondent filed a review petition being Review Application No. 380227 of 2011, seeking review of the writ Court order dated 20 November 2012. The writ Court disposed of the review application clarifying that the writ Court order is required to be complied after reinstating the petitioner/employee, thereafter, consider the matter afresh for awarding lesser punishment. Relevant portion of the order reads thus :

"In view of fact the judgment and order which charge sheet dated 6.6.2005 annexure-3 to the writ petition was quashed. It is clarified that by judgment and order dated 20.11.2012 only orders passed by the disciplinary authority and appellate authority dated 4.8.2006 and 19.12.2006 are quashed.

The respondents will ensure the compliance of the judgment and order dated 20.11.2012 firstly by reinstating the petitioner employee and subsequently by considering the matter afresh for awarding lesser punishment.

Accordingly, the review petition is finally disposed off."

5. In other words, the writ Court clarified that the appellant/bank is required to award a lesser punishment other than dismissal/removal. The writ Court, however, did not return a finding that the disciplinary enquiry was vitiated or that the petitioner was not found guilty of the charge levelled against him. Thereafter, in compliance, respondent/petitioner came to be reinstated in service and from the stage of charge-sheet a fresh enquiry was conducted, finally the disciplinary authority imposed punishment vide order dated 11 June 2014, bringing down two lower stages of scale of pay permanently w.e.f. 31 July 2013 (order passed on the correction application filed by the appellant) to the order passed on the review petition. Aggrieved by the punishment order, respondent/petitioner again approached the writ Court, wherein, the impugned order has been passed.

6. The appellant/respondents are aggrieved that the writ Court while upholding the order of the disciplinary authority partly, allowed the writ petition, insofar, it deprived the respondent/petitioner arrears of salary fo