The judgment establishes the principle of double jeopardy in employment disputes and emphasizes the need for disciplinary actions to be based on valid grounds and not arbitrary or illegal initiation.

JUDGMENT :

ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI, J.

This Writ Appeal is filed aggrieved by the order dated 31.07.2014, passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.4860 of 2003.

2. Heard Sri A.Krishnam Raju, the learned counsel for the appellants and Sri Mohd. Islamuddin Ansari, for the respondent-employee.

3. It has been contended by the appellants that the respondent-employee was initially employed as a Clerk with the Appellant-Bank in the year 1978 and the respondent had indulged in serious irregularities in taking loans and thereafter issuing cheques, which were ultimately dishonoured and the said act of the respondent-employee was construed as misconduct. As the respondent-employee was incurring debts and not clearing them and was damaging the image of appellant-bank, the Disciplinary Authority had initiated disciplinary proceedings and after conducting detailed enquiry, the Disciplinary Authority was pleased to impose punishment of warning for the minor misconduct and imposed another punishment for gross misconduct for doing acts that are prejudicial to the interest of the Appellant-Bank vide Clause 19.5 (j) of Bipartite Settlement and imposed major punishment of compulsory retirement. Aggrieved by the same, the respondent-employee has preferred an Appeal, and the Appellate Authority was also pleased to reject the appeal preferred by the respondent vide order dated 24-01-2001.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants had contended that the Disciplinary Authority has rightly imposed major penalty of compulsory retirement for violating the clause 19.5 (j) of Bipartite Settlement, as respondent-employee has acted prejudicial to the interest of the Appellant-Bank and the reputation of the Appellant-Bank was at stake and the Disciplinary Authority has rightly imposed major penalty of compulsory retirement for the proven misconduct on the part of the respondent-employee in the domestic enquiry. The respondent-employee had challenged the order of compulsory retirement before this Hon’ble Court by filing W.P. No. 4860 of 2003 and the learned Single Judge had allowed the Writ Petition by setting aside the order of the compulsory retirement, as imposed by the Disciplinary Authority and as confirmed by the Appellate Authority and directed that the respondent-employee be reinstated into service with back-wages, without appreciating any of the contentions raised by the appellants. The learned Single Judge had passed the following Orders which are as follows:

“31. Consequently, the order of compulsory retirement passed by the first respondent by order dated 30.01.2000 as confirmed by the second respondent by order dated 24.01.2001 is set aside. The petitioner is entitled to be reinstated into service with back wages. However, long ago, the petitioner had attained the age of superannuation. The respondents are therefore directed to treat the petitioner as if he continued in service till attaining the age of superannuation and accordingly pay him the retiral benefits together with back wages, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.”

5. The learned counsel for the appellants had further contended that the learned Single Judge has erroneously awarded back-wages to the respondent-employee, as admittedly, the respondent-employee never worked from 2002 till he has attained Superannuation and if back-wages are reduced, the ends of justice would be met. Even otherwise, the learned counsel for the appellants had contended that the Disciplinary Authority has rightly imposed compulsory retirement against the respondent-employee for the proven misconduct in the enquiry. Therefore, appropriate orders be passed in the Writ Appeal by setting aside the order dated 31-07-2014 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.4860 of 2003.

6. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent-employee has contended