UNION OF INDIA Vs. JEEWAN LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE respondent No. 1 and 2 were working as Sub Inspector and constable respectively in Delhi Police. Pursuant to the order passed by disciplinary Authority, their services were terminated. The appeal filed by them was rejected. The allegation against them was that they had accepted rs. 38,000/- from one N. K. Joshi to help the accused, in the case registered vide FIR No. 121/1989 of P. S. Shakarpur. They filed O. A. No. 1928/1999 challenging the order of the Disciplinary Authority as well as the order of the Appellate Authority. Vide its order dated 9th July, 2002, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority as well as the Appellate Authority was based on no evidence and therefore liable to be quashed. The Tribunal directed reinstatement of the respondents with the rider that they would not be entitled to back wages for the intervening period till the date of reinstatement, on the principle of "no work no pay". However, in M. A. No. 2060/2003 and 2340/2003 filed by them, the tribunal modified its order, holding that F. R. 54 A (3) was attracted in their case and therefore they were entitled to all the consequential benefits. The tribunal accordingly directed the payment of back wages for the intervening period. Aggrieved by the order of the Tribunal, the petitioners have filed the present Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution.

(2.) THE order of the Tribunal dated 9th July, 2002 directing reinstatement of the respondents has not been challenged by the petitioners and they are challenging only the grant of back wages on reinstatement by the Tribunal vide order dated 19. 11. 2003. The order of the Tribunal has been challenged mainly on the ground that the settled law being "no work, no wages", the Tribunal was not justified in granting back wages to the respondents.

(3.) THE Ld. Counsel for the petitioners has referred to the decision of the hon'ble Supreme Court in Indian Railway Construction Co. Ltd. v. Ajay kumar; JT 2003 (2) SC 295. In this case, the respondent employee was dismissed for assaulting a senior officer and ransacking the office. No inquiry was held before passing the order of termination of his services. The high Court quashed the order of termination of services on the ground that dispensation of inquiry was not sustainable. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, while restoring the dismissal of the respondent, directed the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs. 15. 00 lakhs to him towards back wages, in full and final settlement of his claims. The judgment is not attracted to the facts of this case and is of no help to the petitioners.