I.S. Tiwana, J. - (1.) FIRSTLY the facts.
(2.) THE Appellant who was employed as an Assistant Supervisor in the Military Farm Department, Ministry of Defence, Government of India, was compulsory retired from service with effect from February 27, 1967 as a result of an enquiry held against him under the rules, i.e., Central Civil Service (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965. He successfully impugned this retirement in the Civil Court. Though the trial Court initially dismissed his suit seeking a declaration that his abovesaid retirement was illegal and mala fide, yet his appeal against the said decree was allowed by the Additional District Judge, Amritsar on March 4, 1971. This decree was later affirmed by this Court on October 15, 1976 with the dismissal of the appeal preferred by the Union of India. As a result of this litigation the Appellant was reinstated in service vide order dated March 2, 1977 with effect from the date of his compulsory retirement, i.e., February 27, 1967 afternoon. As a consequence of this reinstatement the Appellant approached the Director, Military Farm for payment of his emoluments for the period February 27, 1967 to March 2, 1977. He put his claim at Rs. 40761.75. The Director, however, vide his order dated March 17, 1977, accepted it only to the extent of Rs. 18924/ -. This was so done in the light of Article 193 of the Civil Service Regulations the relevant part of which runs as follows: 193. (1)............ (2)............ (3)............ (4) (a) Where the dismissal, removal or compulsory retirement of a Government servant is set aside by a Court or (of) Law and consequently the Government servant is reinstated without any further inquiry the period of absence from the duty of such Government servant shall be regularised as per existing orders in that behalf and the Government servant shall be paid, subject to the direction of the Court, if any, pay and allowances in accordance with the provisions of Sub -clause (b) or Sub -clause (c). (b) (i). Where the dismissal removal or compulsory retirement of a Government servant is set aside by the Court solely on the ground of non -compliance with the requirement of the provision of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1955, and where he is not exonerated on merits, the Government servant shall subject to the provisions of Sub -clause (g) of clause (Sic) be paid such amount (not being the whole) of the pay and allowances" to which he would have been entitled had he not been dismissed, removed or compulsory retired or suspended prior to such dismissal, removal or compulsory retirement, as the case may be, as the competent authority may determine after giving notice to the Government servant of the quantum proposed and after considering the representation, if any, submitted by him in that connection within such period (which in no case shall exceed sixty days from the date the notice has been served) as may be specified in the notice: Provided that any payment under this sub -clause to a Government servant shall be restricted to a period of three years immediately preceding the date on which the judgment of the Court was passed or the date or the date of retirement oh superannuation of such Government servant as the case may be. (ii)............ (c) If the dismissal, removal or compulsory retirement of Government servant is set aside by the Court on the merits of the case the period intervening between the data of dismissal, removal compulsory retirement including the period of suspension preceding such dismissal, removal or compulsory retirement, as the case may be, and the date preceding the date of reinstatement shall be treated as a period spent on duty for all purposes and he shall be paid the full pay and allowances for the period, to which he would have been entitled, had he not been dismissed, removed or compulsory retired or suspended prior to such dismissal, removal or compulsory retirement, as the case may be. (Emphasis supplied). Not feeling satisfied with the abovesaid order of the Director, the Appellant filed the present suit for his full claim, i.e., Rs. 40761.5 with the plea that since he was illegally prevented from performing his duties during the period February 22, 1967 to March 2, 1977, be was entitled to his full emoluments and pay etc. As a result of the trial that followed the lower Court has upheld the order of the Director and has dismissed the suit. He appeals. The same very argument that was addressed before the lower Court has been repeated before me that the Appellant cannot be deprived of his emoluments and pay etc. for the period he remained compulsorily retired which retirement was found to be illegal and unsustainable by the Additional District Judge and, therefore, his claim deserves to be decreed in toto. I, however, see no merit in this stand of the Appellant's counsel in view of the above noted provision of law. All that needs to be seen to decide the claim of the Appellant is as to whether his compulsory retirement was set aside by the Additional District Judge on the ground of non -compliance of the requirements of the various provisions of the rules referred to above or was it so set aside on merits, i.e., merits of the case as set up against him during the course of departmental enquiry. Proviso to Clause 4(b) of Article 193 as Reproduced above, makes it abundantly clear that in case the major punishment awarded to a Government servant under the rules 'compulsory retirement is concededly one. such penalty in terms of Rule (1(7)) is set aside solely on the ground of non compliance of the said rules and not on merit of the case, i.e., the case as set up against the Government servant during the coarse of enquirs, then his claim for pay allowances has to be restricted "to a period of three years immediately preceding the date on which the judgment of the Court was passed". It is only when compulsory retirement of a Government servant is set aside by a Court on merits of the case, i.e. when the Court does not find the charge levelled against him as established, the Government servant is to repaid the full pay and allowances for the period he remained retired in terms of Clause 4(c) reproduced above. A perusal of the judgment of the District Judge, Exhibit P. 5, whereby the Appellant's retirement was held to be illegal, shows that the Court after examining the orders of the punishing authority dated February 18, 1967, retiring the Appellant compulsory from February 27, 1967, and the appellate authority dismissing his appeal against that retirement on August 5, 1967 (Annexure P. 19) held as under: Now the perusal of both these orders will show that they do not give any reasons and thus these orders cannot be said to be speaking orders. An order of this type which does not give reasons and is not speaking cannot be as stained in Court of law. While affirming this judgment on October 15, 1976 this Court observed thus: The impugned order, as reproduced earlier, is cryptic and does not show any reason on the basis of which this order was passed. There is a bead roll of authorities emphasising the necessity of passing the speaking orders in such matters. It is thus beyond dispute that the civil Court while setting aside the punishment awarded to the Petitioner as a result of the departmental enquiry did not at all go into the merits of the charges levelled against him and rather set aside the order or punishment awarded to him solely on the ground that the said order was unsustainable in law being a non -speaking order. In such a situation the proviso to Article 193(4)(b) must have full play. It is not the case of the Respondent even remotely that the orders of the punishing and the appellate authorities were in consonance with the above noted rules. Implication of Rules 14, 15, 16 and 27 which respectively lay down the procedure to be followed for the imposition of major penalties, the consideration of the report made by the enquiring officer and the matters to be taken into consideration by the appellate authorities clearly is that these authorities were required to pass reasoned orders fully justifying their conclusions. The Courts having found these orders to be lacking in fulfilling the requirements of the above noted rules, have rightly set these aside. Therefore, the claim of the Appellant has rightly been restricted to three years' period immediately preceding the date of passing of the judgment by the Additional District Judge.
(3.) THE appeal is thus devoid of any merit and deserves to be dismissed. I order accordingly, but with no order as to costs.;