- (1.) LEAVE granted.
(2.) WHETHER respondent should have been granted back wages in the facts and circumstances of this case is the question involved in this appeal which arises out of a judgment and order dated 22. 06. 2005 passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at jabalpur in Writ Petition No. 975 of 2001. The basic fact of the matter is not in dispute. Respondent herein is a Homeopathic Doctor. He was appointed as a Homeopathic assistant in the Homeopathic Dispensary which used to be run by the appellant. However, the Dispensary was closed. He was asked to join the Head office as Office assistant Grade-II. He protested thereagainst. He went of leave with effect from 10. 09. 1991. It is alleged that he remained unauthorisedly absent on and from 10. 09. 1991 upto 1. 12. 1993. In the meanwhile, he filed several representations as regards the decision of the management to transfer him in the post of Office Assistant Grade - II in the Head Office upon closure of the homeopathic Dispensary. A chargesheet was issued to him on or about 12. 07. 1994 in respect of the following charges: "charge No. 1 - Officiating on the abovesaid responsible post, Sri S. K. Yadav, exercising irresponsible behaviour, remained absent w. e. f. 11. 9. 91 from his duty without permission of his Senior officer and without giving written or oral information in unauthorized manner. Even charge of all the homeopathic medicines and commodities of Dispensary which was under you, without handing over the charge to anybody else, kept the keys with you in unauthorized manner. Dr. Yadav was informed to be present on his duty vide letter No. 01-04/cmo/224, Dated 20. 0. 91 (sic) of Chief Medical Officer, M. P. E. B. , but neither he presented himself on duty nor thought it necessary to reply the letter of chief Medical Officer. Thus, Sri S. K. Yadav under provisions of m. P. Civil Service Rules and under para no. 24 (2) of provisions of M. P. Civil services Leave Rules (Classification and appeal) Rules, 1966 which has been admitted by the Board vide its Notification no. 01-01 Five /1620/81/98/68 dated 21. 4. 82, has made himself eligible, violating the above provisions for serious disciplinary action. Charge No. 2 - That Sri Yadav had been directed to give his clarification for remaining absent continuously from duty vide thrs Office Letter No. 02-07/one/estd. 1782 dated 16. 11. 1993. Sri S. K. Yadav on 01. 12. 93 in the afternoon submitted information of his being present in the office of undersigned, but he did not produce any clarification for his undisciplined action. Thereafter, Sri S. K. Yadav was found absent from his duty from 7. 12. 93 without any prior information and permission. Thus, act of Sri Yadav, i. e. , remaining absent continuously from his duty without prior information or permission in unauthorized manner, is grave misconduct contrary to Rule 3 and. . . . of Madhya pradesh Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1965, which has been enforced by the board vide its Notification No. S/111/g-213, dated 28. 2. 68 on its employees and under part 12/1/p of Standard Standing Order. Charge No. 3 -On 1. 12. 93 in spite of being present on duty, Sri Yadav remained disinterested towards the works of electricity Board. Sri Yadav was informed vide this office letter No. 02- 07/one/estd. /53 Dated 11. 1. 94 that you will work under the guidance of Section Officer, but it was found that you were not found on your allotted work in the office and it was also found that you remained absent from office, putting your signature on attendance Register from 10. 30 a. m. to 5. 30 p. m. on regular basis, violating all the office Directions. "
(3.) A disciplinary proceeding was initiated in respect of the aforementioned charges. Respondent was, however, exonerated of charge No. 3. Charges No. 1 and 2 having been proved, a penalty of reduction of pay to its minimum and stoppage of increments for a period of five years was passed against him. Respondent filed an application under section 31 (3) read with Section 61 of the madhya Pradesh Industrial Relations Act, 1960 (for short "the Act") before the Labour court. The said application was allowed in terms of an award dated 29. 05. 1999, whereby the Presiding Officer, Labour Court passed the following award: "hence, allowing the applicant's application, disputed order dated 21. 9. 96 passed by the office of Opposite Parties, on account of being illegal and unjust, I do reject the same and Opposite Parties are being directed that disputed order dated 21. 9. 96 on account of being rejected, applicant is being declared entitled for receiving all his interests and profits of his earlier post before 21. 9. 96 from the opposite Parties. " In the said award, the learned Labour Court discussed in details about the correctness or otherwise of the allegations made against the respondent by the department as also the report of the Inquiry Officer. An appeal preferred thereagainst was dismissed by the Industrial Tribunal by an order dated 3. 08. 2000. A writ petition was preferred thereagainst. By reason of the impugned judgment, the said writ petition has been dismissed. Appellants are, thus, before us.;