A government employee dismissed on grounds deemed excessive is entitled to financial compensation during the intervening period, contingent on demonstrating non-employment during dismissal.

JUDGMENT :

Manjive Shukla, J.

1. Heard Shri Om Prakash Misra, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Kumar Sambhav, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent nos.2 to 5.

2. The captioned writ petition has been filed assailing therein, the judgment and order dated 22.03.2023 passed by the learned State Public Services Tribunal, Indira Bhawan, Lucknow in Claim Petition No.1332/2020 ( Shiv Bachan Gautam vs. State of U.P. and others ) whereby, the claim petition had been dismissed.

3. The facts of the case, in brief, are that initially disciplinary proceedings were conducted against the petitioner and a punishment order was passed on 27.02.2004 whereby, punishment in the form of reversion at the basic pay for one year was imposed against him. The petitioner preferred an appeal against the order dated 27.02.2004 which was dismissed on 02.08.2004, and thereafter, a revision was filed which was allowed vide order dated 04.03.2005 with direction to the Superintendent of Police, Agra to prepare a fresh charge-sheet against the petitioner and conduct fresh enquiry in the matter. Thereafter, again disciplinary proceedings were conducted against the petitioner and the Superintendent of Police (Railways), Prayagraj passed the punishment order dated 07.12.2007 whereby, the petitioner was dismissed from service. Again, the petitioner preferred an appeal which was dismissed vide order dated 18.08.2012, and thereafter, the revision filed by the petitioner was also dismissed vide order dated 25.08.2013.

4. The petitioner in the aforesaid circumstances challenged the punishment order dated 07.12.2007, the appellate order dated 18.08.2012 and the revisional order dated 25.08.2013 by filing Claim Petition No.555/2014 before the learned State Public Services Tribunal, Indira Bhawan, Lucknow. The learned Tribunal after considering the entire material in detail, allowed the Claim Petition No.555/2014 vide judgment and order dated 27.10.2016 and set aside the order of punishment of dismissal from service along with the appellate order and the revisional order with a liberty to the respondents to impose appropriate punishment against the petitioner. The learned Tribunal in its judgment and order dated 27.10.2016 had recorded a categorical finding that the punishment of dismissal from service was shockingly disproportionate to the alleged misconduct and found that the disciplinary authority had awarded excessive punishment of dismissal to the petitioner.

5. The judgment and order dated 27.10.2016 passed by the learned Tribunal in Claim Petition No.555/2014 was complied with by the respondents and the petitioner was reinstated in service on 07.03.2017. Thereafter, the respondents instituted a preliminary enquiry and proceeded to take decision in respect of the matter of payment of salary to the petitioner for the period from 11.12.2007 to 07.03.2017, as per the applicable rules. It is noteworthy that after setting aside of the order of dismissal from service by the learned Tribunal, the respondents have not imposed any punishment against the petitioner.

6. The Superintendent of Police (Railways), Prayagraj issued a show cause notice on 04.11.2018 to the petitioner whereby he was required to file his reply on the issue as to why he may not be denied salary for the period from 11.12.2007 to 07.03.2017 on the principle of 'No Work No Pay'. The petitioner submitted his reply on 30.11.2018. The Superintendent of Police concerned had passed an order on 13.12.2018 whereby, he