N.K. Gandhi vs Central Bank of India and Others

A.G. Uraizee, JJ.—This appeal is filed to question the correctness and legality of judgment dated 10/11/2008 passed by learned Single Judge in SCA no. 10776/1994 whereby though the termination order is quashed and set aside, the back wages are not granted. The Learned Single Judge has partly allowed the petition filed by the petitioner. The facts of the present appeal are that the appellant resumed his service with the respondent-Central Bank of India on 29/8/1989, where he was assigned the duty of issuing/maintaining the record of demand draft. On 7/10/1993, the appellant was served with the charge sheet for having committed certain lapse in records of the demand drafts, which caused loss to the respondent Bank. The appellant replied to the charge sheet, which was not accepted by the respondent Bank and departmental inquiry was initiated against him. The report dated 8/2/1994 came to be submitted by the Inquiry Officer. The appellant was served with the copy of the report of Inquiry Officer and was called upon to submit his reply. The appellant submitted his reply to the report of the Inquiry Officer. Ultimately, the appellant came to be removed from the service by order dated 11/8/1994. The appellant-original petitioner challenged the order of learned Single Judge by filing the writ petition in the High Court.

Learned Single Judge vide impugned judgment dated 10/11/2008 has partly allowed the petition and has quashed and set aside the termination order but has not granted back wages in favour of the appellant-original petitioner. Therefore, the appellant has preferred this LPA.

We have heard Mr. B.B. Naik, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. K.B. Naik, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. K.J. Macwan, learned counsel for the respondent Bank.

Mr. B.B. Naik, learned senior counsel has simultaneously has, urged that though learned Single Judge has quashed and set aside the termination order. Learned Single Judge has committed grave error in not allowing the back wages to the appellant. He has also submitted that once the termination order is set aside, the order of back wages automatically follows. Hence, he has urged that this appeal may be allowed and appellant would be granted full back wages.

Per contra, Mr. Macwan, learned counsel appearing for the Bank has vehemently submitted that no illegality is committed by learned Single in not granting the back wages to the appellant. He has further submitted that learned Single Judge has assigned cogent and convincing reasons for not granting back wages. Hence, this appeal may be dismissed.

We have gone through the impugned judgment of learned Single Judge. The observation made in para 13 is as under for not allowing the back wages to the petitioner:

The contention raised by the petitioner that the inquiry proceedings stood vitiated on the ground that the findings with regard to "negligence" which formed part of the Inquiry Report were not considered by the disciplinary authority cannot be looked into at this stage in view of the fact that the said aspect was not disputed by the petitioner in his defence statement submitted to the disciplinary authority on 02.07.1994. Therefore, the said contention is devoid of any merits and does not invite any attention from this Court. So far as the contention raised with regard to grant of back wages is concerned, in my opinion, the same could not be granted since the petitioner has been found "negligent" in discharging his duties, which has resulted into huge financial loss to the respondent Bank. Even if the order of the disciplinary authority is found to be sustainable in the eyes of law, the same would not automatically entitle the petitioner to get back wages, more particularly, when he is found "negligent" in discharging his duties. The petitioner is getting the benefit of lapse on the part of the disciplinary authority and it is not that he has been exonerated in the departmental proceedings. Even otherwise, the petitioner does not deserves to get back wages in view of the well-know principle of the Apex Court "No work No pay". Thus, I am of the opinion that the petitioner is not entitled for any back wages as claimed by the learned Advocate for the petitioner.

We are in full agreement with the reasons recorded by learned Single Judge. We are of the considered opinion that the reasons recorded by learned Single do not suffer from the any infirmity or illegality warranting interference in this appeal. The appeal lacks merits therefore, it is dismissed. However, without costs.