KESHAVLAL FUSABHAI PARMAR Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present appellant, who was working as a Sepoy -cum -Rakshak with the respondent, was charge -sheeted with the allegation that he was wearing plain clothes on duty and was using filthy language against the SIPF; an inquiry was conducted and the plaintiff was served with an order dated 17th February, 1983 terminating his services.

(2.) AS the appeal at the instance of the appellant proved futile, he has filed the present Second Appeal, which has been admitted for hearing the parties on the following substantial question of law:

(3.) MRS . Pahwa, learned Counsel for the appellant, submits that the judgement and decree passed by the two Courts below are patently illegal because while denying the back -wages, no reasons have been assigned by them. She also submits that as the question of punishment was to be reconsidered by the Disciplinary Authority, the question of back -wages could not be decided by the Civil Court. According to her, once the punishment order is set aside and the Disciplinary Authority is required to reconsider the question of award of punishment, then, the question of back -wages should be left open to be decided by the Disciplinary Authority.