ORDER G.B. Pattanaik and B.N. Agrawal, JJ.
1. The U. P. Financial Corporation is in appeal against the judgment of the Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court. The respondent was an officer of the Corporation and for several irregularities noticed, he was suspended from service w.e.f. 5.11.1981. A disciplinary proceeding was initiated and ultimately, on the basis of the findings of the said disciplinary proceeding, the Disciplinary Authority dismissed him from service w.e.f. 30th June, 1984. The legality of the order of dismissal was assailed by the respondent by filing a writ petition in Allahabad High Court being Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 7872 of 1984. The learned single Judge of the High Court came to the conclusion that since the charges leveled against the delinquent were established on the sole basis of a report said to have been made by one Shri A. K. Kulshreshtha and in the disciplinary proceeding, neither the said report was furnished to the delinquent nor Shri Kulshreshtha was examined, in the eyes of law, there could not have been a finding of guilt of the charges in the proceeding in question. The High Court, therefore, came to hold that the disciplinary proceeding gets vitiated and so also the ultimate order of dismissal passed by the Disciplinary Authority. The learned single Judge, however, further noticed that the charges leveled against the delinquent are serious and accordingly, he observed that it would be open for the corporation to draw fresh proceedings against the delinquent if it so desires. As a result of the said observation and the respondent having been directed to be reinstated, the corporation assailed the order of the learned single Judge in appeal before the Division Bench. The Division Bench proceeds with an analysis of facts and then records a finding that the learned counsel for the appellants accepted the position that on the findings recorded by the learned single Judge, the direction for reinstatement of the petitioner-respondent No. 1 in service cannot be assailed. The Division Bench ultimately went into the question as to whether the delinquent would be entitled to back wages for the period of his dismissal and his reinstatement, and concluded the matter by directing that an inquiry be held on the question whether respondent No. 1 (the delinquent) should be given full back wages/salary from the date of order of dismissal till his reinstatement in service bearing in mind the provisions of the Departmental Rules/ Regulations/Instructions and the principles laid down in the decisions of the High Court and the Supreme Court, and pass a reasoned order within three months of production of a copy of this judgment before the Managing Director of the Corporation. It is against this order the Corporation is in appeal before this Court.
2. Mr. Sanyal, learned senior counsel appearing for the corporation, raised several contentions in assailing the legality of the order of the learned single Judge as well as the Division Bench, but in view of the aforesaid concession of the counsel appearing for the corporation before the High Court, we are not persuaded to examine the correctness of the orders of the learned single Judge as well as that of the Division Bench, the matter being limited only to the question of payment of back wages. But, having regard to the nature of charges against the delinquent which the learned single Judge himself has noticed in the judgment, which was the subject-matter of appeal before the High Court, and having regard to the fact that the proceedings got vitiated by non-furnishing of report of Shri Kulshrestha as well as his non-examination in the proceeding, we dispose of these appeals with the following directions :
(1) The disciplinary proceeding which had been initiated against the respondent stands revived and is relegated to the stage of filling of reply by the delinquent to the set of charges leveled against him.
(2) The reply in question will be filed within four weeks from today.
(4) The period from 30.6.1984, the date of order of dismissal till the order of the learned single Judge, namely. 1.8.1994, as to how the period will be treated and what pecuniary benefits, if at all, will be given to the delinquent will be decided after the results of the conclusion of the aforesaid disciplinary proceeding.
(5) The delinquent would be entitled to his remuneration from the date of the setting aside of the order of dismissal, i.e., 1.8.1994 till any subsequent order which the appropriate authority may pass in view of the entire facts and circumstances.
(6) The salary of the delinquent-respondent from 1.8.1994 till today shall be paid within three months from today.
(7) In the absence of any statutory provision conferring a right of deemed suspension, on the order of dismissal being set aside, the delinquent must be deemed to be continuing in service from the date of the said order, i.e., 1.8.1994, though it may be open for the appropriate authority to pass any further order in accordance with law, as provided in any Rules/Regulations etc. (8) The disciplinary proceedings pursuant to the directions contained hereinabove, may be concluded within six months from today.
3. By now the delinquent must be held to be fully aware of the nature of charges against him which the concerned authority has leveled and are going to establish and, therefore, would be in a position to give his appropriate reply within a period of four weeks which we have granted pursuant to this order.
4. These appeals stand disposed of accordingly.