Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 22756
THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
S.R. Krishna Kumar, J
C. Ramesh – Appellant
Versus
Hindustan Aeronautics Limited – Respondent
WP No. 3297 of 2023
For the Appellants/Petitioners: S. Mubarak Begum
For the Respondents: Pradeep S. Sawkar
Reinstatement following the reduction of a disproportionate penalty does not automatically entitle an employee to backwages. The grant of backwages is discretionary, and where misconduct is proven, the principle of 'no work no wages' applies to the period the employee remained out of service.
Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Articles 226 and 227 - Judicial review of disciplinary proceedings - Scope and limits - Interference by High Court in disciplinary orders is confined to cases of illegality, perversity, or violation of principles of natural justice - Court cannot sit as an appellate authority to re-appreciate evidence or substitute its view for that of the competent disciplinary authority. (Paras 7 and 8)
(B) Service Law - Misconduct - Unauthorized absence - Claim of ailment as justification - While absence due to compelling circumstances like severe illness may mitigate misconduct, the burden rests on the employee to demonstrate that absence was not willful - Principles of Natural Justice - Requirement to provide notice when past service record is considered for imposing punishment - Failure to provide such notice vitiates the penalty order. (Paras 14 and 15)
(C) Service Law - Backwages - Reinstatement arising from a modified or lesser penalty as a matter of discretion - Grant of backwages is not an automatic consequence of reinstatement - Principle of 'no work no wages' applies where the employee has not worked and misconduct stands proven. (Para 9)
Facts of the case:
The employee was dismissed from service due to habitual unauthorized absence. The High Court, in a previous round of litigation, set aside the dismissal order on the grounds that the punishment was disproportionate and that the employee was not given notice regarding the use of his past service record. The matter was remanded for reconsideration of the penalty. The management reduced the punishment to a reduction in pay and treated the period of absence and the period after dismissal as unauthorized/dies-non. The employee challenged these orders of the disciplinary and appellate authorities, seeking full backwages and regularization of service.
Findings of Court:
The disciplinary authority and the appellate authority exercised their discretion in compliance with the court's earlier directions regarding the quantum of punishment. The court found no perversity or illegality in the reasoning adopted. It was observed that reinstatement was a mitigating measure rather than a declaration that the termination was illegal from the inception. Consequently, the claim for backwages for the period of non-attendance was rejected.
Issues: Whether the disciplinary authority’s revised order of punishment and denial of backwages for the period of absence/dismissal was legally sustainable and whether the court should interfere with the exercise of discretionary administrative power.
Ratio Decidendi: Where a court invokes its discretionary power to reduce a punishment deemed disproportionate, the reinstatement is a consequential benefit of the lesser penalty and does not automatically entitle the employee to backwages. Absent a finding that the dismissal was void *ab initio* or illegal, the principle of 'no work no wages' applies to the period of absence.
Result: Petition dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. procedural history of dismissal, remand, and subsequent revised penalty orders. (Para 1 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 2. judicial assessment of administrative discretion in disciplinary penalties. (Para 7 , 8) |
| 3. dismissal of petition with liberty to pursue administrative representation. (Para 9) |
THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASHING THE REVISED ORDER OF PUNISHMENT NO. O/HR/532(A)/1602/2021, DATED 25/09/2021 PASSED BY THE GENERAL MANAGER (O) AND DISCIPLINARY AUTHORITY (R-2) ORIGINAL OF WHICH IS PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-E AND ORDER NO. CEO(BC)/A 26/179/2022, DATED 30/11/2022 PASSED BY THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER (BC), AND APPELLATE AUTHORITY (R-3) ORIGINAL OF WHICH IS PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-K AS BOTH THESE ORDERS ARE ILLEGAL, ARBITRARY AND OPPOSED TO THE PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE AND ETC.,
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
In this petition, petitioner seeks the following reliefs:
“a. Issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ or order or direction “quashing” the Revised Order of Punishment No.O/HR/532(a)/1602/2021, dated 25.09.2021 passed by the General Manager (O) & Disciplinary Authority (Respondent No.2), original of which is produced as Annexure – E and Order No.CEO(BC)/A-26/179/2022, dated 30.11.2022 passed by the Chief Executive Officer (BC) & Appellate Authority (Respondent No.3), original of which is produced as Annexure – K as both these orders are illegal, arbitrary and opposed to the principles of natural justice;
b. Issue a writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order or direction directing the HAL – respondents to “grant full Backwages” for the period from 30.12.2016 to 23.09.2021 and “regularize the leave period” with continuity of service and all other consequential benefits including seniority, promotion which he would be entitled to on quashing the Revised Order of Punishment No.O/HR/532(a)/1602/2021, dated 25.09.2021 passed by the General Manager (O) & Disciplinary Authority (Respondent No.2), original of which is produced at Annexure – E and Order No.CEO(BC)/A-26/179/2022, dated 30.11.2022 passed by the Chief Executive Officer (BC) & Appellate Authority (Respondent No.3) which is produced at Annexure – K.
c. Direct the HAL to provide him year-wise PF statement showing the opening balance at the beginning of the period, amount contributed during the year, the total amount of interest credited at the end of the period and the closing balance at the end of the period standing to his credit right from 2007 to till date;
d. Direct HAL to provide year-wise break-up details to the petitioner about his contribution made and also total amount standing to his credit in HAL Employee Pension Scheme as well as in LIC Pension (Defined Contribution Pension Scheme for Officer) right from 2007 to till date; and
e. Pass such other order or orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit to grant on the facts and circumstances of the case including the costs of these proceedings, in the interest of justice and equity.”
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent and perused the material on record.
3. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that the petitioner joined the services of Hindustan Aeronautics Limited in Research and Design Division as Engineer, Grade – II in Bangalore for about 1 year 6 months. Subsequently, the petitioner having been dismissed from service, the petitioner preferred W.P.No.43283/2017 which was allowed by this Court in part by invoking/applying the doctrine of proportionality and by setting aside the order of dismissal and remitting the matter back to the respondent - HAL for reconsideration of the penalty of dismissal from service by imposition of any lesser penalty upon the petitioner within a stipulated period of three months and that all consequential benefits would flow from the qu
