No back wages where employee at fault for not joining transfer, removal quashed on technical grounds, and disciplinary proceedings pending; 'no work, no pay' applies despite reinstatement.

ORDER(ORAL)

Per Hon’bleMr.Pankaj Kumar, Member-Administrative

In this case, the applicant has sought the following reliefs:

(a) To quash the impugned order dated 31.08.2012 so far as it relates to withholding the back wages to the applicant for the intervening period of 23.12.2000 to 27.07.2011.

(b) Direct the opposite parties to pay the back wages to the applicant for the period of 23.12.2000 to 27.07.2011 with 18% interest along with other consequential and monitory benefits.

(c) Any other suitable order or direction which the Hon’ble tribunal may deem fit just and proper under facts and circumstances of the case be passed.

(d) Allow the application with cost.”

2.1 The facts of the case are that the applicant was appointed as Trained Graduate Teacher – Sanskrit (TGT – Sanskrit) in 1992 and posted to Kendriya Vidyalaya (KV), Surat. She filed a complaint regarding sexual harassment against the Principal of KV, Surat to higher authorities and also to the National Commission for Women (NCW). Vide order dated 13.12.2000, the applicant was transferred to KV, Jhanor where she did not join. The respondents issued a show cause notice dated 08.02.2001 to the applicant and she was deemed to have been removed from service vide order dated 28.08.2001 with effect from 23.12.2000. Her appeal was rejected vide order dated 17.06.2002.

2.2 Aggrieved, the applicant approached this Tribunal in OA No. 152 of 2003 whereupon this Tribunal set aside the impugned orders vide order dated 17.03.2009 while keeping the doors open for departmental proceedings affording reasonable opportunity to the applicant to reply. A Contempt Petition No. 84 of 2009 was filed by the applicant. The respondents approached Hon’ble High Court in Writ Petition No. 1591 (SB) 2009 which was dismissed on 15.03.2011 and the respondents reinstated the applicant in service vide order dated 13.07.2011.

2.3 The applicant represented on 02.09.2011 for salary and other benefits for the period 23.12.2000 to 27.07.2011. Following order dated 27.07.2012 passed by this Tribunal in CP 84/2009, the respondents passed an order on 31.08.2012 stating that the intervening period will be treated as leave of kind due to the applicant and that she will not be entitled to back wages; however, the intervening period will be counted for other service benefits. In the meantime, the applicant was served with a charge sheet dated 18.11.2011.

2.4 The applicant preferred OA No. 60 of 2013 against the manner in which the intervening period from the date of her removal and the date of reinstatement was regularized and also against the charge sheet issued to her. Aggrieved by the order dated 27.01.2016 of this Tribunal, she filed a Review Petition No. 13 of 2016 which came to be rejected on 01.04.2016. A Writ Petition No. 11537/2016 (S/B) was filed by the applicant before Hon’ble High Court which was decided on 06.09.2017. Now the applicant has approached this Tribunal in this OA for quashing order dated 31.08.2012 of the respondents and for payment of salary for the period 23.12.2000 to 27.07.2011.

3.1 It is the contention of the applicant that the order of the disciplinary authority effectively removing the applicant from service and the order of the appellate authority confirming the order of removal having been set aside by this Tribunal, the applicant was kept out of service illegally during the intervening period between removal from service and reinstatement, i.e., from 23.12.2000 to 27.07.2011. As such, the order dated 31.08.2012 denying back wages to the applicant during the said period is arbitrary and illegal.

3.2 It is stated that the applicant was never served the show cause notice allegedly issued under Article 81(D)(3) of the Education Code. Further, as the intervening period was regularized vide order dated 31.08.2012, the charge sheet dated 18.11.2011 against the applicant has become redundant.

4.1 The respondents sta