- (1.) Housing Board Haryana filed Civil Writ Petition No. 17232 of 2011 impugning the order dated 21.1.2011 passed by the Financial Commissioner and Principal Secretary to Government of Haryana, Housing Department, Haryana whereby the order dated 13.3.2003 imposing the penalty of dismissal upon respondent No. 1 herein, has been set aside and he has been held entitled to all consequential benefits. Learned Single Judge having dismissed the writ petition vide impugned judgment dated 14.9.2011, resultantly, the Housing Board is before us in the instant Letters Patent Appeal.
(2.) The brief factual backdrop would be necessary : Respondent No. 1, who was a permanent employee of the Housing Board, Haryana was given current duty charge of the post of Executive Engineer and was associated with a project of construction of 600 four-storeyed flats in Sector 14, Panchkula in the year 1993. He was placed under suspension on 3.7.1995 and thereafter served with five charge sheets between the period 16.5.1996 to 25.9.1996. The Enquiry Officer held respondent No. 1 guilty of the charges by furnishing enquiry report dated 30.7.1999, and after issuance of a show cause notice, order dated 13.3.2003 was passed dismissing respondent No. 1 from service. Respondent No. 1 availed of his statutory remedy of filing an appeal, and vide orders dated 22.12.2003, the Appellate Authority directed his re-instatement. However, the Board of Directors of the Housing Board took a view that the Appellate Authority should take a fresh view on the matter, vide its resolution dated 14.9.2005. In pursuance of such decision, the Appellate Authority passed order dated 10.12.2007 disposing of the appeal being without any force. Against such orders, respondent No. 1 filed a revision petition which was accepted by respondent No. 2 and orders dated 21.1.2011 were passed and the order of dismissal passed against respondent No. 1 was set aside. The Revisional Authority further held that the suspension period of respondent No. 1 from 3.7.1995 to 13.3.2003 stood regularized and he was entitled to full back wages. Recovery of Rs. 4,20,12,463/- imposed upon respondent No. 1 was also set aside. It was such order dated 21.1.2011 passed by the Revisional Authority that was challenged by the Housing Board in Civil Writ Petition No. 17232 of 2011.
(3.) Mr. Arun K. Bakshi, learned counsel appearing for the appellant Housing Board, Haryana has strenuously argued that the order dated 21.1.2011 passed by respondent No. 2 was not as a Revisional Authority but has been passed in the capacity of an Appellate Authority. He has also contended that respondent No. 2 has over-stepped his revisional jurisdiction inasmuch as evidence could not have been re-appreciated in the manner in which it has been done. It has also been contended before us that the order dated 21.1.2011 violates the principle of 'no work no pay' as respondent No. 1 has been held entitled to full pay and wages for the period he was under suspension i.e. 3.7.1995 to 13.3.2003 and thereafter from 13.3.2003 to the date of superannuation of respondent No. 1 i.e. 31.1.2008. Learned counsel submits that respondent No. 1 having not discharged his duties for the period aforementioned, no pay and wages could have been granted.;