S.J.MUKHOPADHAYA, J. - (1.) THIS application has been preferred by petitioner against the order No. Vig/CVO/26(326)/88/ 2000 -108, dated 29th May, 2000 whereby and whereunder major penalty of lowering by three stages in the basic pay for a period of three years has been imposed. It has further been ordered that the intervening period from 12th December, 1991 to 4th October, 1998 shall be considered period of non - duty.
(2.) AS the matter relating to petitioner practically stands settled in view of earlier decisions/order of this Court and the Supreme Court, it is not necessary to discuss all the facts, except the relevant one. The petitioner who was a workman under M/s. Hindustan Steel, works Construction Limited (Company, for short) in its Bokaro Steel Plant, was proceeded departmentally for certain allegation. In the Chargesheet, an allegation was made that the petitioner was running a business prejudice to the Companys interest, without permission, which is an act of subversive of discipline. In the departmental proceeding, the petitioner was held guilty and with the permission of the Labour Court u/s. 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, the Company dismissed the petitioner from service. The Labour Court, however, after adjudicating the dispute referred to it by the Government, set aside the order of dismissal inter alia, holding that the management failed to justify its action in dismissing the workman. The Labour Court also held that the punishment of dismissal was disproportionate and not commensurate to the gravity of the alleged misconduct. The Company, thereafter preferred writ petition C.W.J.C. No. 3480 of 1996 (R) against the Award. Learned single Judge vide its order dated 30th January, 1997 dismissed the writ petition. In L.P.A. No. 127 of 1997 (R) preferred by the Company, a Division Bench by its judgment dated 1st May, 1997 held that the charges levelled against the concerned workman (petitioner herein) have been fully established by the appellant -company. However, the order of dismissal was not only held to be harsh but also not commensurate with the gravity of the charges levelled against the petitioner. The dismissal order was set aside and the management was directed to re -consider the matter and Impose appropriate punishment commensurate to the charges proved against the workman (petitioner). The Supreme Court did not choose to Interfere with the order of Division Bench in S.L.P. (Civil) No. 14688/97, as was preferred by petitioner vide order dated 26th August, 1997. The petitioner was given liberty to raise the points before an appropriate forum, if the punishment is not Imposed commensurate with the misconduct. In view of the decision of the High Court, the order of dismissal dated 10th December, 1991 having set aside, the petitioner was reinstated w.e.f. 5th October, 1998. The respondents, thereafter, issued impugned order No. 108 dated 29th May 2000, relevant portion of which reads as follows : "Since the misconduct against you had already been proved during the departmental enquiry conducted earlier, which has undergone many scrutinies including that of Honble High Court, and keeping in line with the directive of Honble High Court and after applying my mind fully on examination of your response submitted vide your letter dated 20.09.1999 and studying all the relevant records in this case. I arrive at the conclusion that a major penalty of lowering by three stages your basic pay as on 5.10.98, for a period of 3 (three) years shall not meet the ends of justice. Accordingly, your basic pay of Rs. 4,110 per month as on 5.10.98 shall be lowered to Rs. 3875 per month with effect from 5.10.98 for a period of 3 (three) years in the scale of pay of Rs. 3050 -75 -3950 -80 -4590. You shall not draw your normal increments during the currency of the penalty and the penalty shall also effect postponement of your future increments to that extent. You would, however, be entitled to get the wages from the date you have actually joined duties, i.e., with effect from 6.4.1999. The intervening period from 12.12.91 to 4.10.98 shall be considered as period of non -duty." Having heard the parties, in view of the fact that the pay of the petitioner has been lowered by three stages in his basic pay as on 5th October, 1998, for a period of three years, it cannot be held to be improper. It is commensurate with the gravity of charges which were proved against the petitioner. Further, the petitioner being out of service since 12th December, 1991, for the intervening period, if it is not treated as duty for the purpose of salary, it cannot be held to be illegal. However, I find certain mistake in the impugned order No. 108 dated 29th May, 2000, as mentioned hereunder. The Division Bench set aside the order of dismissal vide its judgment dated 1st May, 1997 in L.P.A. No. 127/97(R). In view of the judgment of the Division Bench, the petitioner stood reinstated since 1st May, 1997. If the order of the Division Bench was not given effect by the Company for about 1 -1/2 year, the petitioner cannot be held to be responsible. Thus, the order of reinstatement of petitioner w.e.f. 5th October, 1998 as made vide letter No. 455 dated 1/5th April, 1999 cannot be upheld. The petitioner having stood reinstated from the date of Judgment in L.P.A. i.e. w.e.f. 1st May, 1997, he is entitled for salary since the date of reinstatement.
(3.) IN view of the aforesaid mistake, the date 5th October, 1998, which is shown as date of reinstatement being non est, the effective date of reinstatement, punishment etc, should be 1st May, 1997 in place of 5th October, 1998 as shown in the impugned order No. 108 dated 29th May, 2000. Accordingly, the impugned order of punishment No. 108 dated 29th May, 2000 (Annexure -6) is modified to the extent that in place of the date 5th October, 1998. it should be read as 1st May, 1997 for the purpose of punishment in the lower scale, effect of three years of punishment and payment of salary. The intervening period should be treated as 12th December, 1991 to 30th April, 1997, the period cannot be counted towards duty for the purpose of salary but to be counted for all other purpose, including retiral benefits.;