Saumitra Dayal Singh, J. - (1.) This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner to quash the orders dated 24.03.2014 and 02.01.2016 by which the petitioner's representation for award of full back wages/salary has been rejected by the disciplinary authority as also the appeal therefrom has been rejected by the appellate authority of the respondent bank. Facts giving rise to the present petition are that earlier the petitioner - a cashier in the respondent-Bank was dismissed from service on 24.04.2006. His departmental appeal against the same was also dismissed on 13.09.2006. The petitioner did not raise any industrial dispute but approached this Court directly by means of writ petition being Writ A No. 63874 of 2006. It came to be allowed on 06.01.2012 whereby the petitioner was reinstated in service. For ready reference the operative part of the judgment is quoted herein below:- "I, therefore, allow the writ petition and set aside the orders impugned dated 3.4.2006 and 24.4.2006 passed by the disciplinary authority and order dated 13.9.2006 passed by the appellate authority and respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioner in service. In case the respondents intend to hold fresh enquiry against the petitioner, the observation made here-in-above shall not affect the outcome of said enquiry."
(2.) The respondent bank filed an intra court Special Appeal against the judgment dated 06.01.2012. However, it is on record that said judgment was neither stayed nor set aside. Thereafter, the petitioner was reinstated in service on 11.05.2012, consequent to orders passed by this Court in contempt proceedings initiated by the petitioner. However, he was not paid salary from the date of termination till the date of his reinstatement. The petitioner therefore filed another Writ Petition being Writ A No. 59530 of 2012 claiming payment of the said salary. It was disposed of by a judgment dated 11.11.2013 with the following observation:- "Under the circumstances, there is no option but to direct the Bank i.e. respondent no. 2 to consider the claim of the petitioner with regard to salary from 4.3.2005 to 13.5.2012 consequent upon allowing of the writ petition No. 63874 of 2006 by judgment dated 6.1.2012 and pass appropriate orders within a period of three months from the date a certified copy of this order along with fresh representation is produced before the concerned authority."
(3.) Thereafter, on 02.01.2016, the petitioner's application/ representation for grant of salary was rejected for reason of pendency of certain other disciplinary proceedings in pursuance of another charge sheet dated 25.03.2004 issued against the petitioner. Also, the bank filed an application seeking recall of the order dated 11.11.2013, passed by this Court on the second writ petition filed by the petitioner. Basically, the bank sought more time to decide petitioner's representation. That application was allowed on 26.10.2015. The bank was granted three months' further time to take appropriate decision. Thereafter, the bank has proceeded to reject the claim of the petitioner by order dated 02.01.2016 for payment of salary. It has been observed that upon his reinstatement, two inquiries were conducted against the petitioner. First, in respect of charge sheet dated 25.3.2004 and second in respect of charge sheet dated 8.04.2005. By order dated 16.07.2014, the petitioner was dismissed from service in pursuance of charge sheet dated 25.3.2004. Consequently, the inquiry proceedings in pursuance of the later charge sheet dated 8.4.2005 (that had formed the subject matter of earlier two writ petitions filed by the petitioner) was put in abeyance. It has remained thus till date. Thus the disciplinary authority held the petitioner not entitled to salary for the period of suspension from 04.03.2005 to 24.04.2006 as he was dismissed from service on 24.04.2006 and further he held the petitioner not entitled to salary payment for the subsequent period from 24.04.2006 to 13.05.2015 on the principle of 'no work no pay'. Last, it was mentioned in the event of bank's Special Appeal against the judgment dated 06.01.2012 being allowed, the petitioner would not be eligible to any relief.;