DISTRICT JUDGE, RAMPUR Vs. VINOD KUMAR VERMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Special Appeal arises from a judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 27 November 2013 by which the petition filed by the first respondent was allowed with costs and a direction was issued for the payment of back wages, allowances and privileges to the first respondent from 1992.

(2.) The first respondent was a Class III employee in the judgeship of Rampur where he was appointed as Copiest on 1 August 1987. The disciplinary proceedings were commenced against him on a charge of manipulation of judicial records and he was placed under suspension on 25 May 1992. The charge sheet was issued to the first respondent on 7 April 1993 and a supplementary charge sheet was issued on 1 March 1997. The Special Judge, Rampur who was appointed as inquiry officer submitted a report on 16 July 2003 and held that the charges were not proved. The District Judge, Rampur disagreed with the report of the inquiry officer and directed that a further inquiry be held by an Additional District Judge who was appointed as the new inquiry officer. On 22 February 2007, the Additional District Judge submitted a report holding the first respondent guilty of the first and second articles of the charges. On 7 September 2007 a notice to show cause was issued to the first respondent by the District Judge calling upon him to show cause why he should not be dismissed from service. The first respondent submitted a representation upon a consideration of which the District Judge, Rampur passed an order on 20 September 2007 dismissing him from service. The first respondent filed an appeal before the learned Administrative Judge under Rule 7(2)(b) of the U.P. Subordinate Court Staff (Punishment & Appeal) Rules, 1976. The appeal was decided by the Administrative Judge by an order dated 28 March 2011. The Administrative Judge directed reinstatement of the first respondent in service but denied him arrears of salary for the period during which he had not worked. Another representation that was submitted by the first respondent was rejected by the Administrative Judge. The first respondent filed writ proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution. By the impugned judgment and order of the learned Single Judge, the petition has been allowed and payment has been directed to be made to the first respondent of all the back wages, allowances and other privileges from 1992 until date. Costs have been awarded in the amount of Rs.25,000/-.

(3.) The submission which was urged before the learned Single Judge was that denial of arrears of salary to the first respondent was illegal and without jurisdiction on the ground that no such punishment was prescribed under the Rules and in the garb of reducing the punishment, arrears of salary could not have been denied. The learned Single Judge observed that the Appellate Authority did not find the order of dismissal to be correct and consequently directed reinstatement. According to the learned Single Judge, the denial of back wages was a punishment imposed by the Appellate Authority and since the Rules do not provide for imposition of such a punishment, the order was contrary to the statutory Rules and hence a nullity.