A government servant reinstated after dismissal is entitled to full back wages unless delays in disciplinary proceedings are attributable to them.

JUDGMENT :

Alok Mathur, J.

1. Heard Sri Manish Kumar Rai, learned counsel for the petitioners and the Standing counsel for the respondents.

2. The grievance raised in the present writ petition is with regard to the impugned order dated 28.2.2023 whereby Sub Divisional Magistrate, Mankapur has withheld 30 per cent of the salary of the petitioner towards back-wages to be paid to the petitioner consequent to his reinstatement after setting aside of the order of dismissal as well as order dated 27.11.2024 whereby the appeal of the petitioner against the order dated 28.2.2023 has been rejected.

3. The facts in brief are that the petitioner was working as Collection Amin when he was suspended by means of order dated 7.12.2000 in contemplation of a departmental proceedings Subsequently on conclusion of the disciplinary proceedings the petitioner was removed from services vide order dated 12.2.2002, against which the petitioner had filed a writ petition before this Court bearing Writ Petition No.3592 of 2003 (S/S). The said writ petition was allowed by means of order dated 12.5.2008 and the order of removal as well as the appellate order was set aside and the matter was remitted back to the inquiry officer to proceed from the stage of submission of reply by the petitioner,.

4. In compliance of the judgment and order dated 12.5.2008 an inquiry was conducted again and two charges out of six were partially proved but the disciplinary authority was of the view that the charges which are proved were not so grave and accordingly vide order dated 21.8.2008 the petitioner was reinstated in service without awarding any penalty and in light of the order dated 21.8.2008 he continued in service till his superannuation.

5. It has been submitted that while passing the order dated 21.8.2008 the disciplinary authority did not pass any orders pertaining to payment of back wages to the petitioner from the date of his suspension to the date of reinstatement and accordingly the petitioner had preferred a representation to the District Magistrate stating that back-wages has not been forfeited and consequently he would be entitled for payment of full back-wages. The District Magistrate vide order dated 17.3.2012 rejected the representation of the petitioner only on the ground that during the said period the petitioner had not worked.

6. The petitioner challenged the aforesaid rejection before this Court by filing Writ Petition No.3845 of 2012 (S/S) which was allowed on 18.7.2018 with a direction to the District Magistrate to decide the representation afresh in terms of the directions issued by this Court vide its order dated 18.7.2018. The representation of the petitioner was again rejected by Sub Divisional Magistrate vide order dated 21.8.2008 holding that the principle of no work no pay would apply for consideration of payment of wages from the period of suspension till his reinstatement. and consequently the petitioner would not be entitled to any back wages.

7. The said order dated 21.8.2008 was again challenged by the petitioner before this Court by filing writ A No.6064 of 2019 wherein this Court was of the view that the respondents have not decided the matter in accordance with law nor was there any averments with regard to gainful employment of the petitioner during the said period of suspension and consequently remitted the matter back for consideration afresh in accordance with law. It is in compliance of the judgment and order of this Court dated 17.10.2022 that the present set of orders have been passed rejecting the representation again.

8. It is necessary to mention that in t