2003 (10) TMI 626 - SC - Indian Laws

Whether the employer should be denied the salary for the period he was kept under suspension preceding the removal, dismissal or compulsory retirement? Whether the employee would be entitled to the back wages and other benefits from the date or his dismissal to the date of his reinstatement? Held that - The appellate authority directed reinstatement of the respondent and held that he was not entitled to get back wages for the period he was out of service. It may be noticed that the respondent was removed from service without any enquiry and he was not even given show causes notice prior to his dismissal from service. There was fault on the part of the employer in not following the principle of natural justice. These relevant facts were considered and the learned Single Judge and also the Division Bench ordered the payment of back wages. We do not think this is a fit case where the Fundamental Rule 54 could have been invoked by the authorities. We find no merit in the appeal. The appeal is accordingly dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Challenge to the order of dismissal from service.
2. Entitlement to salary for the period of absence from duty.
3. Interpretation of Fundamental Rule 54 regarding salary payment.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Challenge to the order of dismissal from service
The respondent, a Safai Karamchari in CRPF, was dismissed from service without being afforded a reasonable opportunity or served with a show cause notice. The appellate authority set aside the dismissal order due to lack of due process and directed reinstatement. The respondent was reinstated in service following the appellate authority's order. The Union of India challenged the High Court's decision affirming the reinstatement, arguing that the respondent should not be entitled to salary for the period of absence based on Fundamental Rule 54.

Issue 2: Entitlement to salary for the period of absence from duty
The respondent filed a Writ Petition seeking salary for the period of absence from the date of dismissal to the date of reinstatement. The Single Judge held in favor of the respondent, stating that he was entitled to salary for the period he was out of service. The Division Bench also affirmed this decision, leading to the appeal by the Union of India to the Supreme Court.

Issue 3: Interpretation of Fundamental Rule 54 regarding salary payment
The Union of India argued that Fundamental Rule 54 empowers authorities to deny salary to an employee during the period of absence preceding reinstatement. However, the Supreme Court clarified that the provision is enabling and allows authorities to consider relevant facts before deciding on the payment of salary. Citing a precedent, the Court emphasized that the decision on back wages should be based on the final outcome of the proceedings. In this case, the respondent was reinstated without a proper inquiry or show cause notice, indicating a lack of adherence to natural justice principles. The Court found no merit in the Union of India's appeal, dismissing it and upholding the payment of back wages to the respondent for the period of absence.